Picture of the week
By Ron Beasley
November 15, 2008
Big 3 Bail-out thoughts - As Ron sees it.
By Ron Beasley
While I agree that the Big 3 cannot be allowed to go under but I can't agree with a "bail-out" as such. What should happen is a de-facto temporary nationalization. To begin with the entire upper management team and the board of directors should be shown the door with only a final pay check - no parachutes. Throwing money at the companies with the clowns that got them into the mess in charge makes no sense. Put a caretaker management team in place while a restructuring plan is developed. Instead of at least some of the cash move the employees into Medicare which will reduce health care costs by 15 percent or more and begin the move to a single payer system which is essential if the US is going to be competitive in the world market.
Form a blue ribbon commission from business and engineering to determine the path to restructuring the US automobile industry.
Big 3 Bail-out thoughts
By Fester:
In normal times, I would not support a massive bail-out of GM. However these are not normal economic times as we have entered a liquidity trap. Unusual and massive interventions are warranted to prevent a Japanification of the US economy. Salvaging the remains of GM, Ford and Chrysler is most likely justifiable as the alternatives are worse. It is not desirable, but it is justifiable.
Publius at Obsidian Wings argues that the spin-off and inverse multiplier effects will be massive:
There are effectively millions of people who could be out of work if Detroit goes down (and bankruptcy doesn’t provide the potential benefits here it normally would). That sort of massive job wipeout would – in addition to literally decimating large regions of our country – trigger massive economic dislocation.
I don’t care how cool the free market seems in the abstract – these are real problems involving real non-sparrow people. And these very real problems would cascade throughout the country. They can’t simply be ignored because the market fairy (“as if guided by an invisible hand” – puke, vomit) will come and fix everything.
Bloomberg reports that the cost of inaction will be more expensive than any intervention:
General Motors Corp., seeking a federal bailout as its cash dwindles, would cost the government $200 billion should the biggest U.S. automaker be forced to liquidate, a forecasting firm estimated.
A GM collapse would mean ``more aid to specific states like Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana, and more money into unemployment and extended benefits,'' Nariman Behravesh, chief economist at IHS Global Insight Inc. in Lexington, Massachusetts, said today in an interview.
If either $25 billion or $50 billion in government loans and bridge financing that effectively acts as debt during re-organization is needed to keep the entire Mid-western industrial economy functioning with its millions of direct jobs and tens of millions indirect jobs dependent on it, then that is worth it. Remember, each car plant that closes down will destroy three or four times as many secondary jobs as direct jobs.
We do not need to see another three or four million people laid off at once. We do not need to see regions embark upon a land-talent-opportunity death spiral similar to that which happened in Western Pennsylvania when the steel industry collapsed in the early 80s. We'll be facing enough problems in the next couple of years that paying a bit to avoid another massive problem is a very good idea.
Kilcullen And A Pony
By Cernig
There's very interesting interview today with counterinsurgency guru David Kilcullen in the New Yorker.
My take - he says there's less than a year before Afghanistan is irretreivable, that Pakistan is the true central front and that he can see how to rescue both nations. I think he's being overly optimistic about the timeframe to rescue the Afghanistan misadventure. It has already slipped past, for reasons Kilcullen actually explains in his interview - the recalcitrance and corruption of US-backed governments in Pakistan and Afghanistan, too many years of ignoring the very real Pakistan problem, training the Afghan police to be an army-lite instead of policemen and then allowing the Taliban to become the party of law-and-order, insensitive Coalition military operations etc. We can see how things need to be fixed but we can't get there from here.
When you look closer Kilcullen is entirely vague both on what needs to be done in Pakistan (compared with far more specific plans in Afghanistan) and on how to get the political leadership of both nations to go along with any Western plans.
Pakistan (rather than either Afghanistan or Iraq) is the central front of world terrorism. The problem is time frame: it takes six to nine months to plan an attack of the scale of 9/11, so we need a “counter-sanctuary” strategy that delivers over that time frame, to prevent al Qaeda from using its Pakistan safe haven to mount another attack on the West. This means that building an effective nation-state in Pakistan, though an important and noble objective, cannot be our sole solution—nation-building in Pakistan is a twenty to thirty year project, minimum, if indeed it proves possible at all—i.e. nation-building doesn’t deliver in the time frame we need. So we need a short-term counter-sanctuary program, a long-term nation-building program to ultimately resolve the problem, and a medium-term “bridging” strategy (five to ten years)—counterinsurgency, in essence—that gets us from here to there. That middle part is the weakest link right now. All of that boils down to a policy of:
(a) encouraging and supporting Pakistan to step up and effectively govern its entire territory including the FATA [Federally Administered Tribal Areas], and to resolve the current Baluch and Pashtun insurgency, while
(b) assisting wherever possible in the long-term process of state-building and governance, but
(c) reserving the right to strike, as a last resort, at al Qaeda-linked terrorist targets that threaten the international community, if (and only if) they are operating in areas that lie outside effective Pakistani sovereignty.
There's a massive element of Pony Plan in his prescriptions, and it involves everything that the Coalition military cannot do on its own. How does the West get the Pakistani leadership to do a) and b), especially when that would first involve winnowing out the "fecklessness or complicity of some elements in Pakistan" which is the biggest stumbling block to finding a solution to both those massive problems and to ending the safe haven that Al Qaeda and the Taliban's leadership has enjoyed inside Pakistan?
That "and a pony too!" element in even this COIN guru's thoughts about the regions non-military problems reminds me hugely of the shortcomings in the military-led COIN strategy in Iraq, of course. And he's got this telling line on that: "we don’t want to un-bog ourselves from Iraq only to get bogged in Afghanistan while Iraq turns bad again." I thought the narrative was that we were past the chances of the latter happening...
Here Comes the Sun
By Ron Beasley
Now that the election is over we can get back to some news that was put on the back burner the last few months. About a year ago I begin talking about the new printed thin film solar panels that made solar power competitive for the first time.
Let me be the last in the greenosphere to note that Nanosolar has shipped its first panels, and it's no exaggeration to say that this moment will likely be seen as a historical turning point.
[.....]
Nanosolar's claim is that power from their panels will pencil out at about $0.99 a watt. The implications are pretty stunning:
"With a $1-per-watt panel," [CEO Martin Roscheisen] said, "it is possible to build $2-per-watt systems." According to the Energy Department, building a new coal plant costs about $2.1 a watt, plus the cost of fuel and emissions, he said.
I reported here that Nanosolar had increased their production but that most of that was going to Germany.
My own local utility has now jumped on the thin film solar band wagon.
PORTLAND -- Portland General Electric has rolled out its largest solar project ever in the Pacific Northwest.
Hundreds of solar panels are being installed on top of three Prologis warehouses.
Once installed, the 900 panels will produce up to 1.1 megawatts of electricity -- enough to power 100 Portland homes.
All the electricity produced on these rooftops will go straight into the grid.
PGE says this is a major step toward its goal of supplying 25 percent of its energy from renewable resources by 2025.
You can see a video of the installation at the above link. As BJ reported below it looks like the EPA is finally going to make it more difficult for coal fired plants which will make thin film solar even more attractive.
Sentiment Indicator
By Fester:
My family has been sending a flurry of e-mails back and forth to figure out the Christmas gift exchange and wish lists. This is quite unusual as there is more than two weeks before the holidays. However the most interesting thing happened last night as my little brother is visiting my wife and I. My mom called him to remind him that he had not submitted his wish list. She said that they would not be doing gift cards because of the risk of any of the stores going bankrupt.
Wow, what a sentiment indicator. This was not a statement I was expecting from my mom.
Embracing the Loop
By Fester:
In August 2007, I wrote that I believed that the GOP would be engaged in an intermediate term positive feedback loop of stupidity. This is one of my core analytical assumptions at the moment and one of the posts that I am particularly proud of:
Positive feedback loops usually suck as they produce excesses as previous actions encourage more of the same. In the short term, positive feedback loops produce significant disruptions and opportunities. Politically, being on the receiving side of a positive feedback loop that can resist mean reversion allows for a party, or a set of interests to gain rent-seeking positions.....
Another positive feedback loop looks like it is forming now as the Republican Party is becoming more conservative and institutionally more inward seeking....
Combine these retirements with expected strong challenges in the few remaining Northeast Republican seats, the non-Southern, non-movement conservative caucus in the 2009 Congress looks to be miniscule. The internal dynamics will produce leadership elections of hard liners and bomb throwers for a couple of cycles, marginalizing the party nationally and further increasing the institutional power of resource extraction, social and political reactionaries within their own caucus.
There are a lot of verifiable predictions made in that short post, and so far the feedback loop has been 
established, the non-Southern or non-movement conservative groupings have taken a beaten and now via Brendan Nyhan, it looks like the GOP is electing an even more hardline leadership in the House of Representatives. The old leadership was slightly to the right of the 2007-2008 GOP caucus, but not by a whole lot. The new leadership is to the far right of the 2007-2008 caucus but it may not be that much more of a deviation from the 2009 caucus as the GOP's centrists got creamed in 2008 following up their 2006 ass-kicking.
The late great Republican Party
By Ron Beasley
My friend and former blogging partner at Middle Earth Journal, Jazz Shaw, made the New York Times yesterday. That's the good news - the bad news is that put him in the cross hairs of über wingnut Ted Nugent. Bad rocker turned homicidal maniac Nugent declared that RINO Season Is Now Open earlier in the week. Jazz, who left the Republican Party in 2004, responded with a post at his post MEJ venue, The Moderate Voice, with a sensible post.
While talking heads are dashing back and forth suggesting how to “fix” the Republican party, various solutions are being offered. These include suggestions as extreme as rounding up the RINOs and executing them. Most of the plans include a return to their Reagan roots of small government fiscal conservatism, which is a good plan but doesn’t speak to the real issue. Hand wringing over the fate of a party currently backed into a corner of the deep South should not focus on how to win more elections, but rather on finding a plan for America that solves real problems which Democrats are leaving on the table for them.
Item one on this agenda is the 800 pound gorilla of Social Security and Medicare. Frantic “anti-socialist” elements in the extreme fringe of the party who would see all Federal entitlement programs ended do not hold the answer, but a solution is still required. We have no need to scrap these programs, nor would America’s voters tolerate such a move, but they are still driving us toward a national economic crisis in the next 30 to 40 years which could dwarf the one currently dominating the news cycle. The Democrats have failed to field any serious proposals to fix this because the cure is seen as too painful for an entitlement minded electorate to face. But if the cure is phrased properly, people will be willing to recognize that a little pain up front is preferable to an avalanche of agony further down the line. Take the lead on these issues and you’ll start swinging some hearts and minds back in your direction.
Now while Jazz and I might not agree on "the cure" this is indeed the only way the Republican Party can recover. But Jazz has some company in Nugent's cross hairs. Christine Todd Whitman and Robert M. Bostock put themselves on the hit list today -
The Party Won't Win Back the Middle as Long As It's Hostage to Social Fundamentalists
They recognize that the issues of the social conservatives are on the down side of demographic realities - the "pro-life, anti-black, homophobic population is shrinking through both death and enlightenment. The wingnuts of course responded as one would expect.
Some advice to my friend Jazz - your Republican party is history. The Frankenstein monster created by Lee Attwater and Karl Rove has taken charge of the Republican Party and you are not going to get it back. It is now a regional party. The problem is there are very few people living in that region.
November 14, 2008
Hillary Clinton as secretary of state
by Jay McDonough
That's the rumor. It's being reported
President-elect Barack Obama has asked Hillary Clinton if she would be
interested in filling the secretary of state spot in his Cabinet. Marc
Ambinder offers up one theory on Obama's motivation:
The CW in Washington is that Obama wants Clinton in his cabinet more than Clinton wants to be in the cabinet, the theory being that the moment she steps into the administration, she loses her power base, she loses her Senate seat forever, and she loses her voice on domestic policy. She concedes her political identity. Actually, on policy: uncuriously silent in all this is Sen. Joe Biden, who has strong foreign policy ideas of his own and a bigger platform to share them with Obama. Would Clinton become a glorified PR tool for Obama if she accepted the job? A Powell, rather than a Rice?
I don't buy it. Obama has, at this point, over 70% approval ratings. Polling suggests folks are very optimistic about an Obama presidency. At one point, after the last primary, reconciliation of the Democratic Party was a high priority. But by the time the election rolled around, 89% of Democrats voted for Barack Obama. It doesn't seem to me that Barack Obama has to watch his back with respect to Hillary Clinton.
Hillary Clinton is very smart and very capable. But, throughout the Democratic primaries, one of Obama's most effective criticisms of Senator Clinton was her firm position in "old Washington" thinking. How does Obama rationalize a nod to Clinton after that criticism?
There's another big issue; Bill Clinton. Following his presidency, Bill Clinton has been involved in quite a bit of international business ventures that have appeared somewhat shaky from the outside. It had been rumored that Mrs. Clinton had raised the vetting issue when Barack Obama was considering vice presidential running mates and those vetting issues remain.
And, finally, there's an awful lot of Clinton alumni surrounding Barack Obama. I'm all for competency and experience, but some display of independence and "new Washington" thinking is important as well.
Sarkozy Breaks Ranks On Missile Defense
By Cernig
France's U.S.-friendly president sent a clear message Friday to the next American administration: Plans for a U.S. missile shield in Eastern Europe are misguided, and won't make the continent a safer place.
... "Deployment of a missile defense system would bring nothing to security ... it would complicate things, and would make them move backward," Sarkozy said at a news conference with Medvedev. Medvedev smiled and pointed his finger at Sarkozy in approval.
...Sarkozy said he was worried about Russia's threat to deploy short-range Iskander missiles near Poland in response to the U.S. move.
"We could continue between Europe and Russia to threaten each other with shields, with missiles, with navies," he said. "It would do Russia no good, Georgia no good and Europe no good."
Sarkozy said he would discuss the missile issue with NATO counterparts at a summit early next year and proposed a pan-European security conference after that, to include Russia. Medvedev welcomed the idea.
All the more remarkable because:
1) Sarko wasn't just speaking for France - he was meeting with Medvedev as part of an EU-Russia summit and France currently holds the EU presidency.
2) His remarks came just days after the US missile defense supremo, Gen Oberling, said that US interests would be "severely hurt" if the program was cancelled. Obviously, Sarkozy doesn't think that French or European interests would be likewise negatively affected.
The Great Fall of China
By BJ
The great economic engine of China is starting to grind to a halt.
For decades, the steamy Pearl River Delta area of southern Guangdong Province served as a primary engine for China’s astounding economic growth. But an export slowdown that began earlier this year and that has been magnified by the global financial crisis of recent months is contributing to the shutdown of tens of thousands of small and mid-size factories here and in other coastal regions, forcing laborers to scramble for other jobs or return home to the countryside.
Furthermore, the slowdown inhibits China’s ability to work with other nations in alleviating the worldwide crisis.
The Pearl River Delta, known as the world’s factory, powered an export industry that pushed China’s annual growth rate into the double digits and provided work for migrants from interior provinces with poor farmland. But circumstances have changed quickly. The slowdown in exports contributed to the closing of at least 67,000 factories across China in the first half of the year, according to government statistics. Labor disputes and protests over lost back wages have surged, igniting fear in local officials.
The fuel for China’s economic growth, as it has been for many other nations, has been the appetite of the American consumer, and those consumers are tightening their belts.
Retail sales and prices of goods imported to the U.S. dropped by the most on record, signaling the economy may be in its worst slump in decades.
Purchases fell 2.8 percent in October, the fourth straight decline, the Commerce Department said today in Washington. Labor Department figures showed import prices dropped 4.7 percent, pointing to a rising danger of deflation, and a private report said consumer confidence this month remained near the lowest level since 1980.
. . .
Retailers have now logged the longest string of monthly declines since the Commerce Department's comparable data series began in 1992. Excluding automobiles, purchases decreased 2.2 percent, almost twice as much as the 1.2 percent decline anticipated and also the worst performance on record.
Declines were broad based as furniture, electronics, clothing and department stores all showed loses.
Demand at automobile dealerships and parts stores plunged 5.5 percent after falling 4.8 percent in September.
Car sales are among the most affected as banks make it harder to borrow.
Little wonder the Big 3 are looking for bailouts.
However bad this economic slowdown is going to be for North America, the consequences in China are likely to be far worse. The ruling communist government has been able to maintain their grip on power in large part by providing the promise of greater and continuing prosperity to more and more of its citizens. Basically, so long as it ain’t broke, you don’t need to send tanks to Tiananmen Square to fix it.
An economic slowdown means people start thinking about changing their leadership, in China just like everywhere else, and China’s rulers are understandably worried. Places like Tibet and East Turkmenistan are already volatile, and several other regions where prosperity never reached, and where it is about to go into retreat, are likely to start agitating themselves.
A China without (relatively) rich foreign customers is a country on the brink of implosion. Definitely a place to keep an eye on.
Yon And Instie Declare Victory In Iraq
By Cernig
Michael Yon, the Right's favorite "good news" war correspondent has declared victory in Iraq, telling Instapundit Glenn Reynolds "The war is over, and we won".
And the wingnut blogosphere seems ready to take them at their word. What a pity Yon couldn't have phoned Instie before the elections, eh?
I think thats probably a bit over-optimistic of them. So do Gen. Petraeus and the entire U.S. intelligence community, but what does they know, compared with Yon, Reynolds and the Fighting Keyboarders? However, since they believe it, can we have all the troops home now? Not just over the course of a few years, but right now?
A Boondoggle To Defend Against A Fiction?
By Cernig
On Wednesday, Iran announced it had tested what it said was a new missile. But Iran has a history of exaggerating its accomplishments in weapons development, variously claiming stealth aircraft that aren't and missiles that don't exist. Western experts reckon there was actually nothing new this time either - and in fact there may not even have been a "this time":
Andrew Brookes of the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies said: "I think the Iranians just keeping on rejigging the same missile and putting a new logo on it. It's basically the Shahab 3 with a different name, and the purpose of the test firing is to tell the world, 'don't forget us', we have missiles that can reach 2,000 kilometres."
"However, the launching of these missiles is not that meaningful because the Iranians have not developed an advanced minituarised warhead to fit into the front end, unless they are getting help from North Korea or Russia, and Moscow says it is not supporting Iran's missile programme.
... Duncan Lennox, editor of Jane's Strategic Weapons, said:.. "What is not clear is whether the test firing took place today or whether it's a photograph taken out of the archives but from the pictures it looks like a two-stage missile with a range of 1,900-2,000 kilometres."
And Dr. Jeffrey Lewis also notes that there's even scepticism over whether this rebranded missile, by either name, is actually solid fuelled - which makes a vast difference to its military usefulness as liquid fuelled missiles need a long time sitting on their launchers while they're filled with fuel (which can easily explode anyway) during which time they are sitting ducks for airstrikes.
Even such a missile is capable of hitting Tel Aviv, however - and the Israelis are supremely confident they could shoot it down before it did. It cannot reach Rome, Athens or Prague from Iran, and as such doesn't constitute any kind of threat to Europe. (Although it could reach Tbilisi, Georgia - but then again, so could earlier, far less sophisticated Iranian missiles, it's only 500 or so miles.) Even if Iran had missiles that could target Europe - and ever has warheads worth doing that with - as Dr. Lewis has previously noted, the Aegis cruiser platform would be a better alternative to the multi-billion boondoggle the Bush administration has proposed in Eastern Europe, both more effective and more sensitive to Russian concerns.
So what's going on? Well, Spencer Ackerman recently spoke to a bunch of Pentagon officials and military experts for a piece in the Washington Independent about Obama's relationship with the military and its supporters. Their unanimous advice was: "Consult, don’t steamroll — and don’t capitulate." and to make it clear there's only one Commander in Chief. In an adjunct piece at his FDL home, Spencer directly tackles the military budget and attitudes to "big ticket" procurement:
One of my sources for the piece is a Pentagon official who requested anonymity. He made a really interesting point that, alas, had to fall out of the piece. Despite the unsustainability of half-trillion-dollar military budgets during this period of dire financial hardship, the services will cling to their favorite big-ticket programs with an icy death-grip. If Obama's really going to make painful cuts to unnecessary defense programs, he's got to go all-out, making it clear that he's in charge and the cuts are happening no matter what. If he doesn't do that, he's going to get rolled throughout his presidency.
And he specifically links that to missile defense and Gen. Oberling, who told the AP:
The Air Force general who runs the Pentagon's missile defense projects said Wednesday that American interests would be "severely hurt" if President-elect Obama decided to halt plans developed by the Bush administration to install missile interceptors in Eastern Europe.
Oberling is due to retire in a couple of weeks. Does anyone doubt that his next job will be for either one of the contractors who stand to gain big-time from the ABM program or one of the neocon think tanks who have pushed it so hard as part of their "New American Century" plans? Those think tanks - themselves heavily funded by the very same arms manufacturers - have made explicit that missile defense should eventually include space-based weapons and be aimed at Russia too (thus Russia's consternation at the current plans) and intend a January push to sway the Obama administration and public opinion in an attempt to prevent Obama cancelling the program, as he has previously indicated he might.
These vested interests intend trying to steamroller Obama from word one, and Oberling is willing to bend the truth all out of shape in their service. He's pushing, as one ex-military writer puts it, "a ballistic missile defense system that doesn't work to defend it from ballistic missiles that don't work either." And the Cheneyites of the Right are willing to start Cold War II to get it, and the money for their arms-making allies that it represents.
Dirty Coal Takes a Hit
By BJ
Looks like everyone will be able to breathe a little easier in the future.
In a landmark action, the Environmental Protection Agency’s final decision-making board has ruled that all new and proposed coal-fired power plants must have their carbon dioxide emissions regulated. The Environmental Appeals Board ruled today that the EPA has no valid reason for refusing to place limits on the global warming emissions from Desert Power’s proposed 110-megawatt coal-fired power plant in Vernal, Utah.
. . .
The 69-page decision described the Bush administration’s arguments as “weak,” “questionable,” “not sustainable,” and “not sufficient,” and rebuked EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson for failing to issue CO2 regulations, repeatedly recommending an “action of nationwide scope.”
One of the claims of the coal industry - that there's some capacity to use coal without emitting carbon dioxide using fancy new technology - is about to be tested in a big way. One sign to look for is squealing; if the industry gets very upset, it means they weren't really telling the truth about the ability to use clean coal technology in the first place. If they don't squeal, then it looks like we're going to get a whole bunch of coal plants that don't emit carbon.
I’m sure we’ll hear squealing regardless, because whether or not the technology is workable, you can bet it is more costly than just allowing the coal plants to pollute away freely. So not only will we hear squealing, we’ll be hearing how the Obama administration, (which isn’t yet in power), and the Democratic Congress, (who had nothing to do with this decision), are causing people hardship by raising energy prices because they won't allow the power companies to pollute without paying for it.
Still rather good news for the moment.
Make them pay taxes
By Ron Beasley
This is just the most recent reason why the tax exempt status of Churches should be ended.
SC priest: No communion for Obama supporters
COLUMBIA, S.C. – A South Carolina Roman Catholic priest has told his parishioners that they should refrain from receiving Holy Communion if they voted for Barack Obama because the Democratic president-elect supports abortion, and supporting him "constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil."
The Rev. Jay Scott Newman said in a letter distributed Sunday to parishioners at St. Mary's Catholic Church in Greenville that they are putting their souls at risk if they take Holy Communion before doing penance for their vote.
"Our nation has chosen for its chief executive the most radical pro-abortion politician ever to serve in the United States Senate or to run for president," Newman wrote, referring to Obama by his full name, including his middle name of Hussein.
"Voting for a pro-abortion politician when a plausible pro-life alternative exists constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil, and those Catholics who do so place themselves outside of the full communion of Christ's Church and under the judgment of divine law. Persons in this condition should not receive Holy Communion until and unless they are reconciled to God in the Sacrament of Penance, lest they eat and drink their own condemnation."
During the 2008 presidential campaign, many bishops spoke out on abortion more boldly than four years earlier, telling Catholic politicians and voters that the issue should be the most important consideration in setting policy and deciding which candidate to back. A few church leaders said parishioners risked their immortal soul by voting for candidates who support abortion rights.
If organized religion feels obligated to involve itself in politics and government they should be required to pay for the services they receive from the government.
More extra-solar photos
By Fester:
USA Today reports that astronomers are taking pictures of extra-solar systems with multiple planets. That is freaking cool:
Astronomers reported Thursday that they have the first snapshot of another solar system — one with three planets larger than Jupiter — orbiting a nearby star.Circling the star HR 8799, the three planets "are a scaled-up version of our own solar system," says study leader Christian Marois of the National Research Council Canada. A large star about 128 light years away (a light year is about 6 trillion miles), HR 8799 resides in the constellation Pegasus, according to the online report released Thursday by the journal, Science.
"This is the first image of a multi-planet solar system," says Marois, who headed a U.S.-Canadian team that sifted light measurements from the star in 2004 and 2006 to photograph the planets in infrared light. "Here we are actually seeing the light, temperature and size of these planets."
November 13, 2008
Who needs accountability
By Fester:
Forgetting about Watergate and allowing for a rapid rehabitiliation of most of the Nixonian senior leadership worked out well.
Ignoring Iran Contra and allowing a President to remain out of the loop had no longer lasting harm.
Going to war based on either lies, contempt for the truth or amazing idiocy has had no long lasting harm. Replacing US Attorneys for not pursuing spurious voter fraud cases has increased confidence in our electoral system. Seeing a city drown has been a net positive for this country. Burning a CIA asset with alleged sources in Iran has increased our knowledge and decreased uncertainty.
Actually requiring accountability and potential criminal liability for these actions would be completely uncivil and counterproductive. It is not like the ghosts of Richard Nixon would ever be allowed to haunt another White House (hi Vice President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld), our political process is too mature for that. Who could imagine an ignorant Know Nothing could become President or nominated for Vice President for any party larger than the Constitution Party.
That would just be uncivil. Our institutions are too strong to be bothered with accountability.
Or at least that is what the Wise Old Men of Washington want to argue:
"At a conference in Washington this week, former department criminal division chief Robert S. Litt asked that the new administration avoid fighting old battles that could be perceived as vindictive, such as seeking to prosecute government officials involved in decisions about interrogation and the gathering of domestic intelligence. Human rights groups have called for such investigations, as has House Judiciary CommitteeJohn Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.).
"It would not be beneficial to spend a lot of time calling people up to Congress or in front of grand juries," Litt said. "It would really spend a lot of the bipartisan capital Obama managed to build up."
This is despite the fact that Obama really did not build up a lot of bipartisan capital if you define that in terms of the number of Republicans who self-identify as Republicans who voted for him. This is despite the fact that we need accountability for a departure from the historical explicit and implicit constitutional norms (six years of self-pants shitting is not a valid defense). This is despite the fact that there is a consensus that everything that has been done in the past eight years will have to be undone.
Political considerations affected every crevice of the department during the Bush years, from the summer intern hiring program to the dispensing of legal advice about detainee interrogations, according to reports by the inspector general and testimony from bipartisan former DOJ officials at congressional hearings....
"The infusion of politics into the Justice Department and an abdication of responsibility by its leaders have dealt a severe blow," Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), the panel's ranking Republican, wrote in an opinion piece last month. "Great damage has been done to the credibility and effectiveness of the Justice Department."
No, it is best for this country that Georgetown cocktail parties are enjoyable and open to all.
Fuck accountability; that is for the plebes.
Rendell to stay in Harrisburg
By Fester:
On hearing the news that Lt. Gov. Knoll (D-PA) passed away this morning, I had the same exact thoughts as the Angry Drunk Bureaucrat:
In a more cold, calculating vein: Ed Rendell will not be accepting a position in the Obama administration until his term is up, lest Republican Joe Scarnati, now Lt. Governor, take his office.
Countercyclical Carbon Taxation
By Fester:
I am a Keynesian --- I believe that government should be a countercyclical force in the economy. When times are good, the government should build up reserves and repay old debts, and when times are tight as no one else wants to risk borrowing or lending money, government with its near infinite time horizons and ability to recoup large positive externalities should step in to alleviate the pain of a recession. I believe that the US government should run a structurally balanced budget to a mild structural surplus which is why I think the Bush policies are a massive opportunity as well as a real cost. Large deficits were justifiable in 2001, 2002 and 2003, but we were theoretically 'booming' in 2004 to 2007 when surpluses should have been run to pay off the past.
Right now the US government is running at a structural deficit. Obama's pledge to make his tax policies revenue neutral will be a good thing in the shortest of terms, but a negative over the long run as there is not enough to cut from ongoing operations in Iraq, and the perrenial favorite of 'waste, fraud and abuse' to deal with the rising claims against government resources as Medicare looks to become a budget buster in the next decade. National healthcare or at least the Baucus plan will help on that front, but more revenue is needed.
Kevin Drum looks at a carbon tax as accomplishing both an environmental goal and a bond market goal:
If a cap-and-trade plan were passed in 2009, it would probably take effect in 2012 or so, and the revenue stream would start small the next year and then grow every year after that. That's perfect timing. We don't want to raise taxes right now, but a program that guaranteed a growing revenue stream starting a few years from now would help convince investors that the current budget deficit won't last forever.
A carbon tax would have an added advantage of being an inherently counter-cyclical tax. It will bring in more revenue during good times as the value of pollution as a by-product of increased production and distribution of goods and power will increase. However during tough times such as today, miles driven decrease, industrial production decreases, electricity demand decreases. The value of an annual permit thus decreases which means there is a little more money floating out in the economy as an automatic stimulus.
Condi Rice's History
By Cernig
Warren Strobel at McClatchy's Nukes and Spooks blog:
The Bush administration will soon be history, but that hasn't stopped its senior members from trying to rewrite history for the next couple of months ... and no doubt, long after.
We were watching a video of CSPAN's interview with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice when we had to suddenly stop and hit the rewind button. Rice said this, and we quote:
When I go to Europe, I no longer see any difference in the view that a stable and secure Iraq is in everybody’s interest, and that an Iraq that is democratic and in which Saddam Hussein, that brutal monster that caused three wars in the region, including dragging us in twice, that used – who used weapons of mass destruction against his own people, that an Iraq that is democratic and friendly to the West is better for the Middle East. I don’t see much disagreement about that.
Dragging us in twice?
Pause. Think about that.
...In fact, the record is now clear (as we reported at the time) that President George W. Bush had decided to go to war against Iraq in early 2002, just a few months after the 9/11 attacks. Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction or significant, operational ties to fundamentalist Islamic terrorists. The Bush administration dismissed Saddam's accounting of his WMD, ignored offers of mediation, and used bogus and false intelligence to make the case for war. It didn't let the U.N. Security Council or opposition from Europeans get in the way. All that makes for an odd definition of "dragging us in."
And this woman wants to go back into education as a career. Do you think she really believes it, or do you think she just knows that the loyal base (you know, deep thinkers like "Thomas Sowell, Glenn Beck, Michelle Malkin, Governor Sarah Palin" - and Ted Nugent) will?
All Politics Is Local, Even In Iran
By Cernig
Dutch journalist Thomas Erdbrink, who is based in Tehran, has a must-read piece today in the Washington Post which details how, now that Obama is the President-Elect and offering no-precondition talks, non-trivial but junior members of the Iranian government are making noises about walking back their own offers to hold unconditional talks.
“People who put on a mask of friendship, but with the objective of betrayal, and who enter from the angle of negotiations without preconditions, are more dangerous,” Hossein Taeb, deputy commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, said Wednesday, according to the semiofficial Mehr News Agency.
... In recent interviews, advisers to Ahmadinejad said the new U.S. administration would have to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq, show respect for Iran's system of rule by a supreme religious leader, and withdraw its objections to Iran's nuclear program before it can enter into negotiations with the Iranian government.
"The U.S. must prove that their policies have changed and are now based upon respecting the rights of the Iranian nation and mutual respect," said Mojtaba Samareh Hashemi, the president's closest adviser.
Ahmadinejad's media adviser, Mehdi Kalhor, said that "in fair circumstances" Iran would be open to talks. "But that is not when you have a bayonet pressed at your artery," he added, referring to the U.S. forces deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf.
All this provides neocon hawks with the perfect opportunity to bang the "prefidious Iranians" drum, and Ed Morrissey doesn't miss that chance:
This is the point that Obama and his allies never seem to understand. Some people just hate us, and not because of our policies on trade and security. Iran is a nation run by radical Islamist mullahs who see secular democracy as the enemy of their religion, and Western values as a temporary heresy which they plan to correct with a global caliphate under Iranian control.
Irans’ mullahs see America as the bastion of these values, and Israel as our outpost for them in the region. Europe is mostly irrelevant to them; they can deal with Europe after eliminating the arsenal of democracy, or hobbling it so badly that we no longer make a difference.
But it's Ed who is missing the point. As Spencer Ackerman points out, Obama is more of a threat to those mullahs than Bush ever was. If you're an intransigent theocon Iranian leader:
All of a sudden, you’re deprived of a method of demagoguery that’s aided your regime for a generation. And if you refuse to negotiate, you’ve just undermined everything you told the international community you wanted, and now appear unreasonable, erratic, and unattractive to foreign capitols. Amazing how the prospects for peace are more destabilizing to the Iranian establishment than any inevitably-counterproductive-and-destructive bombing campaign or war of internal subterfuge.
That's an analysis born out by Erdbrink's past work too. Back in 2004, he co-wrote a Time piece which pointed out that "dominant hard-line clerics are worried that friendly American behavior might aid reformers, who are less anti-Western than the conservatives."
There's a presidential election in Iran next year and a moderate now heads the committee which would choose the replacement for the ailing Ayatollah. In other words, it's not about nukes or about international opinion - its about the shakier thrones Irans hardline government now find themselves sitting upon; with the best weapon in their arsenal, Bush's neocon ways, consigned to history.
Obama intends to investigate use of torture by Bush Administration
by Jay McDonough
High at the top of my wish list - the things I hope Barack Obama
does immediately upon assuming the presidency - is mount an
investigation into the Bush Administration's implementation and use of
torture. We know from Congressional testimony, second hand accounts
and exhaustive journalistic chronicles
that torture was not, in fact, carried out by some out of control
nightshift staffed with bad apples, It was orchestrated in a
systematic, sanctioned program approved at the highest levels of our
government.The recent news President-elect Obama intends to close Guantanamo is a hopeful sign that Mr. Obama will address, at least tangentially, the issue of war on terror detentions.
In August, Salon wrote about an Obama plan to investigate the Administration, should he be elected. Obama has said "If crimes have been committed, they should be investigated." Salon reported this week that Obama advisors are developing plans for investigating abuse during Bush's tenure.
Most consider it unlikely that any criminal charges will ever be brought against Bush Administration officials. Great efforts were made by the Administration to cover their trail (and asses) with Justice Department memos and modifications to the War Crimes Act, and the likelihood of ugly, partisan warfare makes any attempt to prosecute the guilty remote. (That does not, however, mean these individuals won't be subject to international law and tribunals, as former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld is well aware.) Any inquiry would most likely take the form of an appointed commission, chartered with investigating timelines, directives, implementation, and the Administration's claims of the effectiveness of torture.
Rumors circulated this summer that President Bush intends to issue a blanket presidential pardon to insure that any and all individuals who approved, orchestrated and implemented these brutal techniques are not prosecuted.
The president is within his Constitutional powers to grant such a
pardon, though it would be unprecedented in scope (thousands of
people?) and the first ever granted to exempt Americans from war crimes
prosecution. It might also be construed as a tacit admission of
wrongdoing and stain whatever legacy Mr. Bush has left. Though, even
if a pardon allows the guiltyto avoid prosecution, it may provide for a more open investigation. From Salon:
There are, in fact, some constitutional scholars who believe a pardon might actually facilitate more complete participation in a fact-finding commission, by removing the threat of looming liability. "Holding people accountable is certainly nice, but in terms of healing the country and moving forward, so is actually getting a clear picture of what happened and letting the public make an informed decision," said Kermit Roosevelt at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. "If we had a pardon followed by something like a truth and reconciliation commission, that might not be such a bad outcome." (Roosevelt represents a detainee held at Guantánamo.)
An investigation, even without criminal penalties for the guilty, would send a clear signal to the rest of the world that America is back on track and not governed by leaders with contempt for the law and who believe it's acceptable and in keeping with American values to use the brutal interrogation practices employed and perfected by the Nazis, Khmer Rouge, China and the Stalinist Soviet Union.
G.laringly O.bsolete P.achyderms
By Cernig
I take it as a given that any party-based system of democracy needs a healthy and viable opposition to stop the party in power getting too big for its boots and inevitably heading down the path of hubris towards results that aren't good for democracy. It's a pattern we've seen in the UK with the conservative years that began with Thatcher and with the social democrat years begun in turn by Blair. In the U.S., you've had something not dissimiliar - perhaps now to be perpetuated by Obama following in Blair's footsteps.
However (just like UK conservatives did after Thatcher and Major) the traditional home of U.S. conservatives, the Republican Party, seems intent on making itself as non-viable as possible for the forseeable future. Ted Nugent speaks for the not-so-silent minority of angry Republicans:
Consensus building is for wimps and soulless people who stand for nothing. Compromise is not about being tolerant: these days, it’s about giving up conservative principles.
...Conservative leaders and thinkers such as Newt Gingrich, Jed Babbin, Governor Jindal of Louisiana, Thomas Sowell, Glenn Beck, Michelle Malkin, Governor Sarah Palin and others need to turn up the heat and bring this less government, more individual freedom and strong national defense revolution to a boil. It is time.
My specialty is making Fedzilla punks squirm and turn into a puddle of sweat and drool. Therefore, in the spirit of famous butt kickers Generals Chesty Puller and George Patton, I say we launch an attack on all fronts. Uncle Ted hereby declares it is open season on RINOs. No bag limits or permits required. Conservative ideas, arguments and votes are the weapons we will use. Hunt them down and shine a blazing light on these RINO turncoat cockroaches. Zero in the "we the people" crosshairs of your voting assault weapon and aim for the RINO pumpstation. Double tap center mass. Whack em and stack em, track em and hack em, pack em and give em no slack. Let's do to the RINO beasts what we did to the passenger pigeon. Force out of the Republican Party out the subspecies known as RINOs.
Thus do the dinosaurs ignore their coming nadir, by impugning the adaptability of those pesky omnivourous mammals, neither carnivore nor herbivore but some unholy combinbation of both. It's a theme that other hardline "thinkers" of the right - like Malkin, Palin and Beck - have been plenty vocal about too.
And, all schaudenfreude aside, it's going to be a disaster not only for the G.O.P. but for America at large. If Obama doesn't follow Blair down the path of over-reach and broken promises (simply because, well, he'll get re-elected anyway without a viable alternative) then his Democratic successors in the Oval Office will. Guardian columnist Jonathan Freedland, in an NYT op-ed today, sets out how UK conservatives spent their time in the wilderness and how they found their way back.
Mr. Cameron’s candidacy was built on a simple premise: modernize or die. He told the Tories they had to look as if they actually liked the country they sought to govern, rather than wishing they could turn back time. They could not hope to form a winning coalition without appealing to the Britons whom Mr. Blair had made his own: women, suburbanites, the highly educated. Relying on angry old white men was never going to get the Conservatives much beyond 33 percent.
To that end, Mr. Cameron set about decontaminating the Tory brand. Central to that mission were forays into two areas of political terrain previously deemed forbidden zones. First, he signaled comfort with gay rights, ditching the party’s previous support for laws restricting sexual equality. Second, he championed environmentalism.
It remains to be seen whether the G.O.P. will be the vehicle for an eventual US conservative comeback. It's quite possible that it will atrophy and die under the direction of the American hard right's neocons and theocons - far more virulent than their British counterparts ever were. But if so, then some other party will be the conservative party, with a vastly reduced extremist influence, and the right will eventually regain at least parity with the left again. By then, that will be a good thing.
Who needs 60?
By Ron Beasley
There is still a possibility that the Democrats could get the 60 votes they need to stop filibusters but Joe Conason makes the case that they really don't need it. There are enough Republicans who will be afraid to block popular legislation.
Nobody can doubt that the Republican remnant in the Senate will obstruct as soon as that seems politically safe. Right-wing pundits, from Rush Limbaugh to the Wall Street Journal editorial page are already egging them on furiously. But is there enough muscle behind that filibuster threat to block Obama's mandate?
The short answer is no -- and the new president's own political arsenal should enable him to call the Republican bluff.
Let's count the actual votes on the Republican side of the aisle, asking which senators would have both the inclination and the will to join a filibuster. Every issue calls forth different levels of resistance, of course, but in each instance the opposition would need at least 41 total. In the very worst case, should the Republicans pick up all the remaining seats, they will begin with three more than that.
For starters there are six Republicans who are up for reelection in states carried by Obama.
Judd Gregg (R-NH), Arlen Specter (R-PA), George Voinovich (R-OH), Mel Martinez (R-FL), Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Richard Burr (R-NC). Having seen their fellow incumbents fall in the last two elections, that half dozen may well consider themselves in varying degrees of political peril. Poor Gregg watched his New Hampshire colleague John Sununu drop this year as their state turned deep blue. Martinez won his seat in 2004 by a single point and is widely considered vulnerable. So are Specter, nearing his 80th birthday, and Voinovich, now 72.
And there is John McCain who is not nearly as popular in Arizona as he used to be.
His term will expire in two years as well, and at least one poll shows that he would lose his seat to Janet Napolitano, the state's popular Democratic governor. Perhaps that is why he returned home to campaign on the eve of the election.
It's not 2000 or even 2004.
As the nation rebalances its politics away from the right, Senate Republicans may well ask whether they can maintain even their diminished numbers in the next cycle. How eager will any of these endangered incumbents be to participate in filibusters that will leave them open to the "obstructionist" label that Republicans used to slap on Democrats who fought the Bush administration?
The only question that remains is how Obama and the Democrats will use this new found power. Will we really see change? Or will they listen to the wrong people.
Hawks Pressure Obama To Ignore Iraqi Sovereingty
By Cernig
Some more thoughts about Gates staying on as SecDef and about Gareth Porter's article yesterday which says sources within Obama's transition team tell him that the chances of are pretty low. Gareth wrote:
Opposition to Obama's pledge to withdraw combat troops from Iraq on a 16-month timetable is wide and deep in the U.S. national security establishment and its political allies. U.S. military leaders have been unequivocal in rejecting any such rapid withdrawal from Iraq, and news media coverage of the issue has been based on the premise that Obama will have to modify his plan to make it acceptable to the military.
The Washington Post published a story Monday saying that Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, opposes Obama's timeline for withdrawal as "dangerous", insisting that "reductions must depend on conditions on the ground". Along with Gen. David H. Petraeus, now the head of CENTCOM and responsible for the entire Middle East, and Gen. Ray Odierno, the new commander in Iraq, Mullen was portrayed as part of a phalanx of determined military opposition to Obama's timeline.
Post reporters Alec MacGillis and Ann Scott Tyson cited "defence experts" as predicting a "smooth and productive" relationship between Obama and these military leaders "if Obama takes the pragmatic approach that his advisers are indicating, allowing each side to adjust at the margins." But if Obama "presses for the withdrawal of two brigades per month," the same analysts predicted, "conflict is inevitable."
The story quoted a former Bush administration National Security Council official, Peter D. Feaver, who was a strategic planner on the administration's Iraq "surge" policy, as warning that Obama's timetable would precipitate "a civil-military crisis" if Obama does not agree to the demands of Mullen, Petraeus and Odierno for greater flexibility.
Underlying the campaign of pressure is the assumption that Obama's 16-month timetable is mainly posturing for political purposes during the primary campaign, and that Obama is not necessarily committed to the withdrawal plan.
There's certainly a gap between Obama's campaign promise of 16 months and the 36 months of the SOFA wording, but the hawks are seemingly advocating ignoring that SOFA hard limit too, if "conditions" warrant it. If Obama doesn't stick to that timetable, he has to explain why he's setting the SOFA negotiations and the stated intentions of the Iraqi government during those negotiations - that the US withdraw from urban areas by end 2009 and entirely by 2011, no exceptions or takebacks -aside. That's a no-no, as the US cannot unilaterally go ask for an extension of the UN mandate and expect to get it. A continued presence would then be an absolute infringement of Iraqi sovereignty and make the US presence clearly an illegal occupation. It seems to me that its the folks who are pushing for doing just that who are out of bounds. Not only are they asking to set international law at naught but inviting a massively renewed insurgency. That's just simply not a credible option.
Thus, it occurs to me that they're simply setting up a conservative-aiding and military-excusing narrative for when Iraq's civil war goes South again, which it must given that there's been no reconciliation of the various underlying factional causes for it. "Look at the mess - if Obama had kept the troops in Iraq like we advised it wouldn't have happened." Which will ignore, and hope no-one remembers by then, that staying wasn't a legal or sensible option.
And that's a long way of saying that the kind of brutal and mercenary "realists" who would advocate such a move for purely selfish reasons - and deliberately dump their own shares of blame on their President's head in the process - have no business being anywhere near the triggers of the world's most powerful nation nor near the levers of power. Send them all into the wilderness.
The "realists"
By Ron Beasley
We have been having a little discussion here about the wisdom of keeping Robert Gates at the DOD and exactly how much the Obama administration should be listening to the Scowcroft "realists". See here and here. In the comments the Hoggers very own Ken Anderson referred us to a piece he wrote in 2006,
The Old American Century, Twenty Years of Realist Foreign Policy
Go read it - the entire thing, a few copy and pastes won't do it any justice.
November 12, 2008
Dubya's Legacy
By Ron Beasley
As we noted the other day George W. Bush will leave office with the highest unapproval rating ever recorded. Well the American Conservative magazine notes that that is probably his only legacy.
The 43rd President leaves office without a legacy to stand on.
When future historians argue over the legacy of George W. Bush, the question they confront may be just which bracket of presidential failure he belongs in. Nixon and Johnson? Or Herbert Hoover? President Bush earned his place in the pantheon of disgrace even before he presided over an epochal financial crisis. Absent the atrocities of 9/11, he might have been a mediocrity: a big spender too prone to trust his shallow instincts but able to clear the competence threshold and lacking the sophistication to be truly dangerous.
Then came that epic morning, which Bush answered by giving the hijackers far more than they could accomplish with four planes. His grand democratization plan reduced Iraq to rubble, drove Iran to arm, and provided terrorists with the ultimate recruiting tool. America, once renowned for her decency, became the aggressor her foes alleged.
At home, our failed attempt at global liberation has left us less free than ever before. Ancient liberties, cultural imperatives, even basic solvency were subsumed by the war effort. And the conservative movement that gave Bush his margin sanitized his radicalism at the cost of its soul. All he touched turned to dross. Yet he departs unbowed, still a Churchill in his own mind. It would be easy to leave him to that delusion and turn a more hopeful page. But Bush wasn’t alone in his failure: a country marched behind him and a movement cheered him on.
If the failings of the Bush era are to be corrected—or at least not repeated—we need a clear view of where we’ve been. History will render the final judgment, but herewith a preliminary damage assessment:
"But Bush wasn't alone in his failure", that's important for those who voted for George W. Bush once or twice. And they have some specifics:
How about some tough love for Detroit?
by Jay McDonough
Following up on yesterday's post about the Big Three automakers and what, if any, lifeline should be tossed their way by Washington....
First, some background from a former assistant secretary of Energy during the Clinton years. Joseph Romm recounts an informal partnership between the Clinton Administration and the Big Three automakers to speed the development of hybrid gasoline-electric cars. After spending nearly one billion taxpayer dollars, the automakers walked away from the development project as soon as the Bush Administration were sworn in. The work done in Detroit on hybrids, Romm explains, motivated the Japanese car companies to begin their own hybrid development.
And as the effects of greenhouse gas emissions became known and the price of gasoline was creeping upwards, the Big Three chose to wage intensive legal battles and lobby to prevent fuel efficiency standards from being raised rather than begin the manufacturing of more fuel efficient cars (Congress just provided $25B to help the Big Three for this development).
Sounds like a bunch of knuckleheads, right? No way should they be rewarded for their incompence and obstinance with a big Washington bailout. Well, there's some big time implications to letting them go belly up. From a reader at the Daily Dish:
What's the economic impact if the Detroit 3 ceased operations now? A new study by the Center for Automotive Research estimates that 2.9 million U.S. jobs would be lost in the first year. It would reduce U.S. personal income by over $150 billion in the first year; $398 billion over the course of 3 years. The loss of state, local and federal taxes coupled with the increase in transfer payments (unemployment benefits, etc.) would cost government $60 billion in 2009, $54 billion in 2010, and $42 billion in 2011, for a total of about $156 billion over 3 years.
Dave Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research, says "On a strictly cash basis, it's less expensive to keep industry moving than have it shut down,"
The arguments for letting the Big Three drift towards bankruptcy are, as you might expect, mixed. There have been success stories of huge corporations emerging from bankruptcy relatively intact. And while in bankruptcy, the automakers have the opportunity to trim costs that are making them non-competitive with foreign automakers, such as pensions and health care, and trim operational costs, eliminate non-performing models and shut down underperforming dealerships.
However, the Washington Post notes a study that indicated 80% of car buyers wouldn't buy a car or truck from a manufacturer that's in bankruptcy, fearing loss of warranty, financing issues and parts availability.
One big takeaway from this mess is the burden health care not only places on individuals, but on American corporations hoping to be competitive in a global economy. Anderson at Newshoggers commented:
Perhaps the crushing death of Big Auto by health care costs will wake people up to the enormous burden being placed on American business by the overly expensive, near useless, capricious and often dangerous health insurance "industry."
From a 2007 article in Money magazine:
Health care is the biggest chunk (of cost). GM, for instance spends $1,635 per vehicle on health care for active and retired workers in the U.S. Toyota pays nothing for retired workers - it has very few - and only $215 for active ones.
Thankfully, health care is way up there on the Obama agenda and these burdensome costs will decline.
As I wrote yesterday, some relief will be provided by Congress. But the money ought to come with some new rules for the automakers; a commitment to developing hybrid and alternative fuel powered automobiles, significantly higher fuel standards, a new management team, commitments to maintan as much of their workforce as possible, andsome heavy lifting on the automakers part to get universal health care here in the U.S.
Holding the Gates
By Fester:
American politics can be conceptualized as a competition between reactionaries, conservatives in the traditional small 'c' sense of the word, and liberals. Two to one wins and if the tag team lasts, it is a dominant governing coalition for a generation as the out group is marginalized to regional strong holds and discredited policies.
Andrew Sullivan looks at the reactionaries' belle femme and draws out her implications:
Some readers think my continuing attempt to expose all the lies and flim-flam and bizarre behavior of Sarah Palin is now moot....
But even if she is history, she is history that matters....
The impulsive, unvetted selection of a total unknown, with no knowledge of or interest in the wider world, as a replacement president remains one of the most disturbing events in modern American history. That the press felt required to maintain a facade of normalcy for two months - and not to declare the whole thing a farce from start to finish - is a sign of their total loss of nerve. That the Palin absurdity should follow the two-term presidency of another individual utterly out of his depth in national government is particularly troubling. 46 percent of Americans voted for the possibility of this blank slate as president because she somehow echoed their own sense of religious or cultural "identity". Until we figure out how this happened, we will not be able to prevent it from happening again.
The reactionaries are currently insane in a political sense. And it is the obligation to form a coalition of the sane to oppose and marginalize the insane elements of the political discourse. And we have been seeing that happen over the past couple of years as the Daniel Drezners, Andrew Sullivans, John Coles, William Welds, and others who self-identify as conservatives but also believers in the Enlightenment migrate to support (grudgingly at times) a party that is not insane in its base, views on knowledge, and believes in verifiability of an empirical world.
I have to disagree with my colleague Ron on the desirability of keeping Gates or other Scowcroft allies on-board and involved in the Obama administration. They may be scumbags or they may be angels (I'll vote for un-indicted co-conspirators for Iran Contra for a decent number of them) but they represent an element of the sane political spectrum. And if picking off that group further wedges the rump GOP into the Kristol/Palin/Gingrich/Limbaugh positive feedback loop towards Peak Wingnuttery, that might be a price worth paying.
Another Tipping Point Too Soon
By BJ
All the happy and not-so-happy news about the election having sucked up most of our time and energy, it is always harsh to realize there are several real world issues that aren't going too well.
Australian researchers have discovered that the tipping point for ocean acidification caused by human-induced carbon dioxide emissions is much closer than first thought.
. . .
Ben McNeil, senior research fellow at the UNSW's Climate Change Research Centre, says the ocean is an enormous sink for carbon dioxide, but unfortunately this comes at a cost. "The ocean is a fantastic sponge for CO2, but as it dissolves in the ocean it reduces the pH of the ocean, so the ocean becomes more acidic."
This acidification makes life especially hard for marine creatures such as pteropods — an important type of plankton found in the Southern Ocean — whose shells are made up largely of calcium carbonate.
. . .
This so-called 'tipping point' of acidification had been predicted to occur when atmospheric CO2 levels hit 550 parts per million, around the year 2060.
However, the new research shows levels of the carbonate that these creatures need to build and maintain their shells drops naturally in winter, due to natural variations in factors such as ocean temperature, currents and mixing, and pH.
This means the tipping point is likely to be reached at far lower atmospheric CO2 levels — around 450 ppm, says McNeil, which also happens to be the target set by the IPCC for stabilisation of CO2 emissions.
. . .
"They're at the base of the food chain ... so right now we don't really know the ramifications."
Well, I think we can say that if the base of the food chain gets knocked out, the ramifications are going to be quite severe.
Just something to keep in mind when the usual suspects start moaning that Obama and other world leaders can't do anything to help save the environment because it may adversely affect the economy.
Report: Obama To Stand Up For Iraq Withdrawal
By Cernig
Gareth Porter at IPS has been talking to (anonymous, as ever) Obama transition team folks who tell him that the chances of Robert Gates staying on as SecDef "are now about 10 percent".
The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday that two unnamed Obama advisers had said Obama was "leaning toward" asking Gates stay on, although the report added that other candidates were also in the running. The Journal said Gates was strongly opposed to any timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, and it speculated that a Gates appointment "could mean that Mr. Obama was effectively shelving his campaign promise to remove most troops from Iraq by mid-2010."
Some Obama advisers have been manoeuvering for a Gates nomination for months. Former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig publicly raised the idea of a Gates reprise in June and again in early October. Danzig told reporters Oct. 1, however, that he had not discussed the possibility with Obama.
Obama advisers who support his Iraq withdrawal plan, however, have opposed a Gates appointment. Having a defence secretary who is not fully supportive of the 16-month timetable would make it very difficult, if not impossible for Obama to enforce it on the military.
A source close to the Obama transition team told IPS Tuesday that the chances that Gates would be nominated by Obama "are now about 10 percent".
The source said that Obama is going to stick with his 16-month withdrawal timeline, despite the pressures now being brought to bear on him. "There is no doubt about it," said the source, who refused to elaborate because of the sensitivity of the matter.
As Gareth points out, mainstream opposition to a set timetable has been widespread, with a constant narrative saying that Mullen, Petraeus and Odierno all oppose a fixed timetable and that Obama would wiggle on a fixed timetable to stave of an inevitable conflict with the Pentagon.
But that Pentagon opposition seems to ignoring, or setting aside as beneath their notice, Iraqi statements that there must be a complete U.S. withdrawal by the end of 2011 and the revised "status of forces agreement" which seems to have removed any "wiggle room" without trampling all over iraqi sovereignty in a way that would announce High Noon for insurgents there. Obama, however, is reported to be ready to stand by his campaign promises and the wishes of the Iraqi people.
Obama's website makes no such pledge to "adjust" the timetable. Instead it says the "removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government." It defends the rate of withdrawal of one or two brigades per month and offers to leave a "residual force" in Iraq to "train and support the Iraqi forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism."
When Obama met with Petraeus in Baghdad in July, Petraeus presented a detailed case for a "conditions-based" withdrawal rather than Obama's timetable and ended with a plea for "maximum flexibility" on a withdrawal schedule, according to Joe Klein's account in Time Oct. 22.
But Obama refused to back down, according to Klein's account. He told Petraeus, "Your job is to succeed in Iraq on as favourable terms as we can get. But my job as a potential commander in chief is to view your counsel and interests through the prism of our overall national security." Obama defended his policy of a fixed date for withdrawal in light of the situation in Afghanistan, the costs of continued U.S. occupation and the stress on U.S. military forces.
Let's hope that Porter's sources are correct, and that the Big Media narrative saying Obama is about to turn away from his promise is just an attempt to "create reality" by the military and neo-whatever establishment.
Bush Push To Lock Policy For Obama Has Loophole
By Cernig
And now for some good news.
Last May, White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten instructed federal agency heads to make sure any new regulations were finalized by Nov. 1. The memo didn’t spell it out, but the thinking behind the directive was obvious. As Myron Ebell of the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute put it: “We’re not going to make the same mistakes the Clinton administration did.”
... But that strategy doesn’t account for the Congressional Review Act of 1996.
The law contains a clause determining that any regulation finalized within 60 days of congressional adjournment — Oct. 3, in this case — is considered to have been legally finalized on Jan. 15, 2009. The new Congress then has 60 days to review it and reverse it with a joint resolution that can’t be filibustered in the Senate.
In other words, any regulation finalized in the last half-year of the Bush administration could be wiped out with a simple party-line vote in the Democrat-controlled Congress.
Given how often the Bush administration have sidelined Congress to push their own policies, the notion that a majority of Congress can so easily sideline Bush's last six months in office has a delicious sense of karma about it.
More on Gates
By Ron Beasley
I discussed below why I thought leaving Robert Gates at Defense was a really bad idea. Our own Anderson had this observation in comments:
Too many of these retreads are Cold Warriors, fighting imagined threats in the same old way and looking to drum up enemies that can be portrayed as "existential threats." This is exactly why Russia has been turned into the latest bad guy -- same as the old Soviet one. Stateless, rhizomatic enemies were just not concrete enough to justify massive, decades-long military budgets, but a new Russia fits that bill nicely.
Nothing has changed for the Washington FP consensus. Russia has always equated with the Soviet Union, and a resurgent Russia is the long lost hegemonic power upon which Washington can project its secret desire for constant conflict. It matters not that GM is opening automobile plants in St. Petersburg or that Europe is intimately connected by energy demands.
If we really ever wish to see a break from that thinking, a new administration will just have to boot the buggers out or we will have to waiting until they die off. I see no boot on the horizon.
Which makes this from Josh Marshall even more disturbing:
One thing to understand about Bob Gates is that he's a Scowcroft guy.
Scowcroft, to the best of my knowledge, never endorsed Obama. But he also, very pointedly, didn't endorse McCain either. And going back many months he's been an important player, far in the background and not for public consumption, in the Obama world. Remember, Hagel, who's sort of been Obama's Joe Lieberman (in the good sense) is very close to Scowcroft. He and Powell are close too. He's the guy who brings all this stuff together.
It's also worth knowing that Scowcroft has also been involved in a multi-year rearguard battle against the neocons in the Bush administration, especially in key efforts trying to block sundry wars with Iran, shut down John Bolton, etc.
This is not to say that Scowcroft is pulling anyone's strings. But to understand the Gates' decision (which I understand is going to happen) you need to look at this on-going conversation and perhaps even de facto alliance with the Scowcroft/GOP foreign policy world.
While the Scowcroft "realists" may appear sane when compared to the reign of terror of the criminally insane neocons they are really cold warriors and they too need to be given the boot.
Unofficially Official Leaks To Pressure Syria, IAEA
By Cernig
Yesterday, some anonymous diplomats at the IAEA in Vienna talked to the AP, Reuters and others in a well-orchestrated leak and told them that the atom watchdog's inspectors had found traces of uranium at the bombed "Box on the Euphrates". Cue general speculation, unwarranted by the actual content of the leaks themselves, about Syria's secret nuclear weapons plans.
But the officially unofficial leakers didn't explain whether the "processed" uranium, was lightly enriched, heavily enriched or depleted, or even whether it was in a metallic form or an intermediary UF6 form between raw ore and metal. All of those could be described as "processed" and there's a lot of difference between them. The word was well chosen to fuel speculation.
Previously, even US officials who claimed the building bombed by Israeli warplanes was a reactor had said that it wasn't yet completed and, back in September, El-Baradei told an IAEA board meeting in September that preliminary findings from test samples taken by inspectors granted a visit in June to the desert location hit by Israel bore no traces of atomic activity.
The IAEA described the leaks as an effort to prejudice the agency's conclusions. IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said the IAEA's evaluation of findings from a June visit to the site was not finished and a verdict was unwarranted until the report.
Arms Control Wonk Dr. Jeffrey Lewis points the finger at the US:
The real reason that ElBaradei is reluctant may have more to do with ongoing Israeli efforts to engage Syria. Hibbs has reported that the effort to pressure Syrua has “run aground on a separate diplomatic effort … to encourage Syria to isolate Iran (Hibbs, “Diplomatic efforts to engage Syria hindering US-led campaign at IAEA,” Nuclear Fuel 33:20, p. 4).
So, that’s the rub: Some countries — read the US — want ElBaradei to push for a special inspection — which the Agency has only requested twice in its history. ElBaradei has said that he won’t unless there is evidence of undeclared nuclear material. So, delegations are seizing on the uranium finding — however scant — to force ElBaradei’s hand.
You can see why the DG and the IAEA might be irritated, particularly if the evidence is less clear-cut than the diplomats are suggesting.
And, if it's the U.S. then you can be sure that the Fifth Branch Cheneyites are behind it, in yet another attempt to forestall diplomacy and create the conditions for conflict.
November 11, 2008
Robert Gates
By Ron Beasley
"Anti-war" groups are concerned about talk that Obama might consider keeping Robert Gates on as Defense Secretary. Gates has appeared to be an island of sanity in a sea of the criminally insane. Spencer Ackerman makes an excellent case for keeping Gates on for a year but gates has a lot of skeletons in his closet going back to the Iran-Iraq war and Iran-Contra. Digby asks:....
Seriously. There's nobody out there who hasn't been a lying Reagan Bush whore who is competent to run the defense department?
.... and refers us to this by Robert Parry
In 1991, despite doubts about Gates’s honesty over Iran-Contra and other scandals, the career intelligence officer brushed aside accusations that he played secret roles in arming both sides of the Iran-Iraq War. Since then, however, documents have surfaced that raise new questions about Gates’s sweeping denials.
For instance, the Russian government sent an intelligence report to a House investigative task force in early 1993 stating that Gates participated in secret contacts with Iranian officials in 1980 to delay release of 52 U.S. hostages then held in Iran, a move to benefit the presidential campaign of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
“R[obert] Gates, at that time a staffer of the National Security Council in the administration of Jimmy Carter, and former CIA Director George Bush also took part” in a meeting in Paris in October 1980, according to the Russian report, which meshed with information from witnesses who have alleged Gates’s involvement in the Iranian gambit.
Once in office, the Reagan administration did permit weapons to flow to Iran via Israel. One of the planes carrying an arms shipment was shot down over the Soviet Union on July 18, 1981, after straying off course, but the incident drew little attention at the time.
The arms flow continued, on and off, until 1986 when the Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages scandal broke. [For details, see Robert Parry’s Secrecy & Privilege. For text of the Russian report, click here. To view the actual U.S. embassy cable that includes the Russian report, click here.]
Parry has a lot more. If only part of it is true it should be more than enough to disqualify Gates. I'm not looking for a pacifist to run the Defense Department but I am looking for someone who is sane and I'm not convinced that's Gates. If the Obama administration wants a Republican how about Chuck Hagel?
Obama, the Iran NIE and Honesty
By Cernig
I'm beginning to wonder what's with Barrack Obama on the subject of Iran's nuclear program, and it's worrying me. Despite the bright spot of his promise to negotiate freely with Iran - something the IAEA and Brent Scowcroft, among many others, agree with - Obama has consistently disagreed with the last US National Intelligence Estimate and the UN's atom watchdog by assuming that Iran is currently seeking nuclear weapons. He said so both during the debates and on the campaign trail. Obama has also, as a consequence of the claim that Iran is seeking nukes, refused to take military action off the table. It is, to say the least, schizophrenic.
Some might want to consider Keith Olbermann's reaction to Bush denying US intel in that way, back last year.
I firmly believe that Obama was the best of two choices and that he'll make the world safer by being less likely by far to carry through on belligerent rhetoric that ignores the facts as they are known - but let's not stick our heads in the sand about his oft-repeated words and what they in fact mean. He has ignored/denied the IAEA and NIE findings almost as much as Bush or McCain have, doubtless for his own political reasons.(I refuse to believe he's so dumb as to actually 100% believe his bald claim that Iran is actively seeking nukes in the face of the extant evidence.)
But now, it's time to lead, to tell Americans the truth rather than what is needed for electability among a US population that has been fed Iran demonization wholesale for decades, and to shuck of the Wormtongue voices of neo-liberals, neoconservatives and neo-whatevers. If Obama disagrees with the consensus finding of the US intelligence community and with the findings of the IAEA, both of whom say that if Iran ever had a weapons program it has been dead for years, then he must say so and say why. Otherwise, he must alter both his rhetoric and his policy to fit reality as expressed by those findings - we've had too many years already of, in Obama's own words, not letting facts get in the way of ideology (or political games).
Tough choices in tight times
By Fester:
My recent post on the probable desirability of increasing class room size provoked an interesting response. And it is a response that I will continue to seek to provoke in the next couple of weeks as I believe that we, as a society and a political culture, will be forced to make multiple tough decisions over the next couple of years. These decisions will be on where do we spend very limited and diminishing public dollars and for what services and desired outcomes.
Most state and local governments face a hard balanced budget constraint. There is a little bit of wiggle room, but not a massive amount for non-federal governmental units to avoid this constraint for a couple of years, but it is not a lot. The major sources of revenues for local governments are some combination of other governmental authority pass-throughs, sales taxes, income taxes and property taxes. Usage fees and gambling revenues make up another significant chunk of non-federal revenues. If the recession looks like it will be as severe as it could be, then it is fairly simple to project that sales tax collections will go down as consumer spending crashes and high tax products see the quickest substitution, income taxes will go down as the labor market will not be able to hold onto net wages or hourly wage gains as more people are under or unemployed, and property taxes will fall as more homeowners see significant drops in the assessed taxable value of their homes.
At the same time, local and state government expenses will increase as relief efforts increase and more importantly, the great budget buster of municipal pension obligations will explode. These obligations are happening because of a combination of older workers getting ready to retire and more importantly in the short run, the massive ass-kicking the market has taken over the past year. More cash is needed just as the assets that were supposed to provide that cash have dropped twenty to forty percent in value. Pittsburgh will be facing this problem over the next couple of years.
So programs that are overwhelmingly funded at the state and local level should anticipate facing severe budget constraints. We have an active responsibility to make good choices so that we can either maximize our effectiveness and impact for a given level of spending OR find a level of impact that we want and then minimize the costs that are needed to achieve that impact.
That is why I believe that reversing the trend of class sizes is a viable option as the same level of results can be achieved for much lower costs. That is why I think drug legalization or decriminalization or lowest prioritization will become more popular. That is why I think expanded healthcare access will be politically potent. That is why I think we'll make changes, even if we go into those changes kicking and screaming. There won't be any other viable options left.
No Audit for Obama?
By BJ
This story tugs at the old sense of fairness.
The Federal Election Commission is unlikely to conduct a potentially embarrassing audit of how Barack Obama raised and spent his presidential campaign’s record-shattering windfall, despite allegations of questionable donations and accounting that had the McCain campaign crying foul.
Adding insult to injury for Republicans: The FEC is obligated to complete a rigorous audit of McCain’s campaign coffers, which will take months, if not years, and cost McCain millions of dollars to defend.
Obama is expected to escape that level of scrutiny mostly because he declined an $84 million public grant for his campaign that automatically triggers an audit and because the sheer volume of cash he raised and spent minimizes the significance of his errors. Another factor: The FEC, which would have to vote to launch an audit, is prone to deadlocking on issues that inordinately impact one party or the other – like approving a messy and high-profile probe of a sitting president.
McCain, on the other hand, accepted the $84 million in taxpayer money, which not only barred him from raising or spending more – allowing Obama to fund many times more ads and ground operations – but also will keep his lawyers busy for a couple years explaining how every penny was spent.
Now, for obvious reasons, the government should exercise its oversight capability on anything the taxpayers are funding, and since McCain’s campaign was taxpayer-funded, he has to bite the bullet on this one. I don’t know if such an audit will finally get to the bottom of complaints about his potential misuse of public financing to secure a loan during the primaries, but at least all those folks getting worked up about Sarah Palin’s wardrobe should get an answer or two.
But for the Obama campaign to sidestep this strikes me as unfair, and to some extent unwise. The right has already been twisting itself into knots over how Obama was able to raise such large sums of money, and will use this lack of an audit to confirm in their own minds that the stories they’ve spun for themselves are therefore true.
While I have little faith that an audit with its pesky “facts” will do anything to change their minds, since such things will always produce findings that are unflattering to the audited, it would at the very least put to rest any questions about bias for those of us not in the non-persuadable category.
And quite frankly, we’ve just spent the last eight years bitching about a White House occupant whose fetish for secrecy was more than “We the People” should allow from any public servant. If Obama really wants to show us all a new era of open and accountable government, he can start by opening his campaign books to an independent review. Fair is fair, and if I were one of the 3.1 million people who donated money to the campaign, I would very much like to know that there was some kind of independent oversight in place to provide assurance that the money was accounted for properly.
In the meantime, as Alan Stewart Carl suggests, maybe John McCain can rewrite his election finance laws so that the billion-dollar industry of electing the US President will be assured of seeing the auditor’s flashlight.
Should the Big Three be put out of their misery?
by Jay McDonough
Should the government step in to save them or just let them die peacefully in their sleep? Barack Obama and most of the Democratic caucus believes some government assistance, to the tune of $25B (remember when that seemed like a lot of dough?), will be required to keep the Big Three automakers afloat.
This comes just a few weeks after Washington provided another $25B the automakers claimed they needed to finance the conversion to building more fuel efficient cars. (Of course, one could argue any management team with the smallest bit of competence would have directed the development of more fuel efficient cars long before now).
Henry Blodget argues let the Big Three die:
Ford,
GM, and Chrysler are done for regardless, Obama. Bailing them out yet
again won't fix them. It will just prolong the agony.
The companies' problems result from:
- Their inability to build cars (cars, not trucks) Americans love
- Their inability to restructure their way out of their pension and union obligations
- Their inability to compete on their own merits.
Throwing another $25 billion of taxpayer money down the rat hole won't do anything other than postpone the crisis. Just let the companies go bankrupt, Obama. That's what bankruptcy is for. Let the shareholders and debt holders take the hit. Not the American taxpayers.
The danger, of course, is that the companies never emerge from bankruptcy, and a significant number of folks are without jobs and pensions.
It's likely Barack Obama and the Democrats will prevail here, and Detroit gets another $25B check from the government. And just like banking and insurance, the American people will now have some "ownership" in American automobile manufacturers. But how about setting up some new rules for American business:
- We're all about free enterprise. But if a corporation is so poorly managed to require massive government assistance to stay afloat, that management should get the boot and the government (and, by extension, the taxpayers) get some oversight into the management of the bailed out company.
- And about those companies that are too big to fail? How about this; if a company is too big to fail, it's just flat out TOO BIG.
IAEA Head Would Welcome Direct US/Iran Dialogue
By Cernig
Add Mohammed el-Baradei to the list of those welcoming Obama's statements that he'd talk to Iran.
"If there is a direct dialogue between the United States and Iran, I think Iran will be more forthcoming with the agency," IAEA Director Mohamed ElBaradei said.
"(A) political opening will also convince Iran to work with us to solve remaining technical issues," he told a news conference in Prague after meeting Czech Foreign Affairs Minister Karel Schwarzenberg.
"That political component of the (Iran) issue requires in my view a direct dialogue with Iran and that's why I am very encouraged by President-elect Obama's statement that he is ready to engage Iran in a direct dialogue without preconditions.
El-Baradei, who was one of those that said plainly that Iraq had no extant WMD and was thanked for being right by a Bush administration push to replace him, also underlined that, to date, there is no proof Iran is seeking nuclear weapons either.
We are able to verify all their declared activities, we are able to verify their enrichment programme, which is a good thing. But we are still not able to move forward on clarifying some of the outstanding issues related to alleged studies that could have some linkage to a possible military dimension."
Iran says its nuclear plans are to make electricity so it can export more oil and gas.
"There is a lot of concern about Iran, not today but about Iran in future... whether once they develop the technology, what are they going to use it for, whether they will go for nuclear weapons," said ElBaradei.
"That is the concern shared by the Security Council." [Emphaisis Mine - C]
There's a lot in that snippet to unpack.
First of all, there's the unequivocal statement that everything the IAEA has so far checked has come up clean - a civilian program only and one that cannot now be re-directed to military uses without IAEA foreknowledge. That warning period would be at least six months and possibly a whole year long, so why is anyone still talking about keeping military options on the table? Saber rattling is counter-productive in such a circumstance - there's plenty of time to put talk of such options back in process if Iran ever makes a move to re-enrich to bomb-grade but for now there is no such program.
Secondly - the "alleged" studies el-Baradei refers to are all from 2003 and earlier, from a time when US intelligence says Iran did have a nuke program, in a very early stage, which has since been shut down. Notice all those conditionals? That's because, as Gareth Porter notes in his latest investigative report, the IAEA has serious doubts about US-provided evidence for how extensive those studies were even then. All the information the US has provided the nuke watchdog has come from a laptop provided by the People's Mujahedeen of Iran, a Marxist-Islamist terrorist organistation advocating regime change in Iran in its own favor, which has provided a long list of faulty intelligence claims about Iran, but which has even so become beloved by neocon advocates that "real men go to Tehran". All of the information on the laptop is open to question about its authenticity. Gareth notes that the "next IAEA report, due out in mid-November, will include the first response by the Agency to a confidential 117-page Iranian critique of the laptop documents, according to the Vienna-based source."
Lastly, El-Baradei makes it clear that the IAEA's only worry now is about what Iran might do in future to turn its current entirely civilian program into one with a military dimension. That's in marked contrast to Bush administration officials, Barrack Obama and other Western political figures, who have continued to talk as if Iran has an extant nuclear weapons program. El-Baradei is reminding the UNSC that the evidence contradicts that rhetoric, something Russia has publicly acknowledged already and has refused to bow to US pressure upon. Even now, the Bush administration is trying to push through a third set of UNSC sanctions before Obama comes into office (and before the IAEA report on the "Laptop of Death"'s credibility) and a new meeting is scheduled in Paris for Thursday.
The neocons may be still pushing their narrative of the need to attack an imminently nuclear Iran, in rampant denial of the collapse of their plans for a New American Century. But the truth is that other US and Western policymakers' hostility to Iran, including Obama's rhetoric, have their roots in the decades old US Embassy fiasco and the campaign of demonization that following it rather than in any actual evidence about Iran's current nuclear plans. While that means that, sans a nuclear "smoking gun" there's little chance now of an attack, the race to sanction Iran for what it isn't doing (while rewarding Pakistan, India and Israel for what they are) will continue and will continue with the threat of war ever present.
"This may be the best example in recent times of highly coordinated threat of force against a country to bring about diplomatic solution...I'm not sure," said Ret. Marine Corps Gen. Joseph Hoar, the former head of CENTCOM, the military command responsible for the whole of the Middle East. "[...F]or people that think this is serious, I would put it in the utter folly department."
The best chance of heading that folly off is Obama's dialogue, as it can open up what Iran and the US share, e.g. on Afghanistan.
"What [the U.S.] can do and can't do with Iran is...pretty much a mystery because we have not been prepared to explore with them what the possibilities are," said [Brent Scowcroft, former Republican NSA]. "[...T]alking in itself is not necessarily a concession."
Remembrance Day
By BJ
The day the Great War ended 90 years ago, set aside to remember the fallen from all the wars, before and since. For this year, a tune that, while more melancholy than I generally like, seems to fit the spirit.
In Remembrance
Corporal Nicolas Raymond Beauchamp
Private Michael Levesque
Gunner Jonathan Dion
Corporal Éric Labbé
Warrant Officer Hani Massouh
Trooper Richard Renaud
Corporal Étienne Gonthier
Trooper Michael Yuki Hayakaze
Bombardier Jérémie Ouellet
Sergeant Jason Boyes
Private Terry John Street
Corporal Michael Starker
Captain Richard Steven Leary
Captain Jonathan (Jon) Sutherland Snyder
Corporal Brendan Anthony Downey
Private Colin William Wilmot
Corporal James Hayward Arnal
Master Corporal Joshua Brian Roberts
Master Corporal Erin Doyle
Sergeant Shawn Eades
Sapper Stephan John Stock
Corporal Dustin Roy Robert Joseph Wasden
Corporal Andrew Paul Grenon
Corporal Michael James Alexander Seggie
Private Chadwick James Horn
Sergeant Scott Shipway
More on a potential export plunge
By Fester:
Last week, I argued that US exports were likely to cliff dive as heavy industrial capital equipment and raw materials used to make pretty much everything are no longer in high demand. So prices and quantities demanded at much lower prices are dropping hard and fast.
Now the international trade system is starting to freeze up as the large bulk carriers that transport the raw materials of the modernized world don't have enough business to make it worthwhile to sail. It is cheaper for ship owners to keep their vessels in port with a skeleton crew than to carry cargo.
Capesizes that were attracting rates of $233,988 a day as recently as June are now available for $4,793, according to the Baltic Exchange in London. That's below the cost of paying for crew, insurance, maintenance and lubricants...
At least 20 percent of the vessels most commonly hired to haul coal and ore are sitting empty as steelmakers cut output and dwindling trade credit halts deliveries, ....
``There are simply no cargoes,'' Sjuve said from Oslo. ``It's primarily the steel market but it's even more difficult due to financial markets and letters of credit in particular.''
ArcelorMittal, the world's biggest steelmaker, on Nov. 5 said its global output will decline by more than 30 percent.
No one is buying low end, raw goods, so I have doubts about people buying high value add processed goods in the intermediate term future.
November 10, 2008
Joseph Stiglitz offers some economic advice to Barack Obama
by Jay McDonough
Nobel Prize winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz, wrote a sobering column the other day in the Washington Post, outlining the risks and rewards for the new president in addressing the sagging economy. And like the emerging consensus, Mr. Stiglitz argues the way out of our financial morass includes both short and long term fixes.
During
the campaign, (Obama) argued against cutting taxes on upper-income
Americans, who have done so well in recent years. In addition to
repealing the 2001-03 tax cuts for the wealthiest, Obama should also
consider taxing dividends and capital gains at the same rate as
ordinary income: It would reduce the deficit, have few short-term
adverse effects on an already reeling economy and make the tax code
more fair. After all, why should speculators -- whether on oil, food or
real estate -- be taxed less than those who work long hours to make a
living?
While
the federal deficit looms over the Obama administration's economic
deliberations, we must be careful not to let it block bold action.
Sometimes, we're wiser to pay now rather than later. Borrowing for
high-yielding investments (not just Wall Street bailouts) is common
sense. The decisions not to reinforce the levees in New Orleans or
upgrade the bridges in Minneapolis were penny-wise, pound-foolish
blunders that we lived to regret.
Obama will also need to deal with some vast inefficiencies in our economy if we are to prevent further erosions in our standard of living. Some U.S. sectors are global leaders, such as our world-beating universities and the high-tech firms that thrive on the ideas hatched in our ivory towers. Others are embarrassing, such as health care, where Americans spend far more than citizens in many other industrialized countries and get underwhelming results. We need a bold approach here, reforming not just the way we provide medicine but also thinking more broadly about health.
Stiglitz also highlights energy policy as an opportunity. The Obama plan includes an influx of funds into the development of alternative energy supplies, positioning the U.S. with greener energy sources and providing employment opportunities stemming from these new industries. New energy polilcy with an eye on addressing the climate crisis will, no doubt, include a carbon tax and these taxes will provide a desperately needed, large revenue stream. To those that argue levying a carbon tax at this time risks stalling the economy, Stiglitz asserts it's a pay me now or pay me later issue - he warns if the U.S. doesn't begin to address climate control it's likely foreign importers of American goods will begin adding carbon import tariffs to U.S. goods.
Self-destructive greed
By BJ
John Robb does a pretty succinct job of explaining a good part of America’s economic woes.
At a micro level, McDonalds is a great example of decay brought on by the global marketplace. My local McDonalds recently made a wholesale transition to employing exclusively illegal Brazilians sporting fake documentation (as are most chain stores in the area). Due to competition from these illegal workers, there isn't any compunction to providing a living wage (in the range of $20 an hour), which could be done through a very small hike in prices (I calculated that it would only make the burgers 6-7% more expensive).
Without that level of income, these employees can't even afford to eat in their own restaurant. I suspect this imbalance is being repeated throughout the entire economy. The problem only reveals itself when the bubble that supported the imbalance bursts. Fortunately, for McDonalds, the downdraft hasn't hit it yet. Eventually it will, when most of its former customers earn as much as their current employees.
Pretty cool how markets, essentially dumb systems, can ultimately destroy themselves.
The old saw has it that when Henry Ford got the idea of mass-producing cars, he figured out that he’d have to pay his workers far better than the going rate if they were going to be able to afford to buy even these cheaper horseless carriages. That kind of thinking was one of the things that led to the massive boom in manufacturing and consumerism in North America.
Recently, the CEOs began to note that they could get the same work done for far cheaper overseas, which would lead to higher profit margins for their shareholders. Smart business in the short term, but as everyone jumped onto the bandwagon, we rapidly moved to a world were most of the people manufacturing products can no longer afford to buy them. The wealth effect of the housing bubble managed to hide that for a time, but it is about to come home pretty hard over the next couple of years.
Between a Rock and a Minefield
By BJ
Cernig has already covered the news that President-Elect Obama is looking at ways to close down the prison at Guantanamo Bay and create some kind of system to deal with the tricky class of prisoner that nobody really wants to release but that no court following due process as it is generally thought to exist would be able to convict.
If the US cannot get convictions in either civil or military courts under the full panoply of law, even if those trials have to be held partially in camera to protect necessary national security secrets as provided for in law already, then the US has scewed the pooch and tainted those prosecutions indelibly with torture, illegal rendition and kangaroo justice. Under those circumstances even Hannibal Lecter would walk - and anyone who understands why these things are anathema to normal jurisprudence would say that was a good thing as a universal standard even if no-one would be happy about individual instances.
If the Obama administration cannot see that, then they will have made themselves complicit in the massive crime that the Bush administration has perpetrated through Gitmo, Bagram , Abu Graib, and a host of secret prisons and illegal torture flights. It doesn't matter whether travesties of justice are conducted on the mainland U.S., at the resort in Cuba or in some undisclosed location - they're still travesties of justice. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet and any "hybrid" having any relationship to Bush's rigged tribunals would stink just as highly.
I certainly understand the slippery slope that is the result of abridging the universal standards of jurisprudence. Hell, the Bush administration has provided us all with many of the examples if you needed them. Still, as a practical matter, there are very few people who would agree that allowing the actual worst of the worst to walk is necessarily prudent. I don’t envy Obama the task of trying to close this sorry chapter of American history without either allowing known killers to be freed to kill again or allowing the American system of justice to be permanently stained. One suspects there will be a lingering stench.
As Tim F. put it in a must-read post on the subject, "We have thousands of prisoners that we cannot keep and we cannot charge." And in a fair number of cases, we can’t even be sure who the really dangerous ones are. Some we knew before they were captured, but there are a goodly number who were innocent when captured, but after years of harsh treatment are likely to be dangerous now.
And the prisoners are just part of the minefield Obama needs to navigate. There is also the not-insignificant issue of what to do about all of the Bush administration officials and other personnel that took part in the illegal activities at Gitmo and the other black and not-so-black sites. Do you let them walk free or do you prosecute them?
Operate under the strict interpretations that Cernig does above, and you wind up with a lot of known terrorists walking free and a goodly number of intelligence and military personnel heading behind bars. And maybe that’s for the best. Certainly some price needs to be paid by those who engaged in illegal activity, but I wouldn’t want to imagine the backlash that would inspire.
McClatchy’s round-up of the potential minefields awaiting the Obama administration does offer a rather unique scenario.
He predicted that Obama might sidestep the controversy with the Bush administration's help. If President Bush issues pre-emptive pardons to prevent prosecutions, the Obama administration should form a bipartisan panel, similar to the Sept. 11 commission, to oversee an inquiry, he said. Once pardoned, officials implicated in the controversy would be required to discuss details of the policies because they'd be unable to assert their Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination.
The best person to lead such a commission? Levinson thinks it's John McCain, who condemned the interrogation techniques when he was running against Obama.
"There would be widespread support if the Obama administration did reach out to someone like McCain," Levinson said. "More people would regard it as not so much of a Democratic vendetta but as a necessary cleansing of an episode in recent American history that has had phenomenal costs to us around the world."
Maybe that will work. Whatever happens, I’m almost certain there won’t be many people too happy with the results. But then I can’t see too many ways to digest a sh*t sandwich that would leave a smile on your face.
How to lose a generation in six years
By Fester:
I guess the Republican Party does not want to look at any possibility of winning or at least not getting blown out in the the 1978 to 1993 birth cohort anytime soon as the prospective House Whip is looking to actively engage and enrage on a core issue --- not-fucking over friends, family members, classmates, colleagues:
"You build those conservative solutions, Chris, on the same time-honored principles of limited government, a belief in free markets, in the sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage," Pence said. [my emphasis]
Sanctity of marriage to my ears means that people I went to school with, people who I have grown up with, people who I have worked with, and people who I am friends with will have a massive target on their faces and on their backs for being who they are. I won't vote for a party that actively looks to fuck over my friends or people who are similar to my friends. This is not profound political science or analysis, it is a fact of life. And if the GOP continues down the narrowing path of seeking to win ever larger sub-group majorities of its current coalition by escalating its rhetoric on this issue, it will never receive a hearing among my age cohort as it will be perceived as attacking too many people I and everyone else in my cohort know.
Deep Local Resilience
By Fester:
The Pittsburgh Housing Authority is embarking on an ambitious project to reduce its baseline load demands, increase local resiliency and provide systemic shock absorbers to the Southwestern Pennsylvania power distribution network. Now if I told my acquaintances there that this is what they are doing, they would look at me very funny and suggest that I get out of my cave more often. But that is what they are doing without realizing it too much as the Post-Gazette reports on a major capital improvement campaign:
The drilling of geothermal wells is part of the transformation of the 501-apartment Northview, plus its 91-unit high rise, into models of energy efficiency.
Eventually, the Pittsburgh Housing Authority's 3,300 occupied apartments, plus 200 that are now empty, will get an energy overhaul. It's a $25 million project run by Minneapolis-based Honeywell...
In the summer, heat pumps will transfer the warmth from the air into water, which will then flow through underground tubes into the wells. There, the earth's near-constant 55-degree temperature will cool it, and it will flow back to carry off more heat. The resulting cooled air will be pumped through a central air system that will replace the inefficient window units that are now prevalent in public housing.
In winter, the comparative warmth the water carries from the earth will be used to heat the air....
Geo-thermal air conditioning will significantly reduce peak demand for expensive summer time electricity and geo-thermal heating provides a much higher and thus cheaper temperature base for winter heating. Maintenance will be needed, but ongoing costs for fuel for these base heating/cooling needs will be massively lower. And it is damn hard for an apartment to lose access to the earth for non-payment of a bill, so it provides for a bit of a fiscal cushion for some tenants. This is really cool work being done by the Housing Authority as it looks to be cost-efficient, and produces multiple positive externalities that can be consumed by the general public.
Contrasts
By Ron Beasley
George W. Bush will leave office as the least popular president ever.
On the day that President-elect Barack Obama is visiting the White House, a new national poll suggests that the current occupant at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is the most unpopular president since approval ratings were first sought more than six decades ago.
Seventy-six percent of those questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Monday disapprove of how President Bush is handling his job.
That's an all-time high in CNN polling and in Gallup polling dating back to World War II.
"No other president's disapproval rating has gone higher than 70 percent. Bush has managed to do that three times so far this year," says CNN polling director Keating Holland. "That means that Bush is now more unpopular than Richard Nixon was when he resigned from office during Watergate with a 66 percent disapproval rating."
Before Bush, the record holder for presidential disapproval was Harry Truman, with a 67 percent disapproval rating in January of 1952, his last full year in office.
The latest Gallup poll shows the contrast;
Pomegranates For Peace
By Cernig
My friend Nonny at Crooks and Liars has a great story about Englishman James Brett and his one-man mission to convert Afghanistan's poppy fields into a pomegranate cash crop. In 2007, he convinced a local farmer to switch crops, and a remarkable snowball efect ensued.
In 2007, Brett was invited to Kabul to talk to farmers from various regions of Afghanistan about growing pomegranates. He flew to Peshawar and drove through the Khyber Pass heading to Kabul While driving through the Nangarhar Province, he noticed a farmer in a field of opium poppies. After the seminar in Kabul, Brett bought a large piece of card and a blue marker pen, and wrote 'Pomegranate is the Answer'. On his return drive back to Peshawar, he saw the same farmer again in the field, jumped out of the car and ran toward the farmer with his makeshift sign. His horrified translator chased after this mad ginger-haired Brit, yelling, 'Don't go in there, you could be shot!' Undetered, Brett talked to the bewildered farmer through his translator, about the farmer's life, his family, his children, how he lived and why he grew opium, about Brett's own addiction to drugs. Brett explained that pomegranate was not only the best option as an alternative crop to opium poppies, but was the only feasible one for the Afghan climate and growing conditions, and promised to return to the farmer's land a couple months later with pomegranate saplings. He went home and set up a charity called Pom354.
Brett followed through on his promise, returning a few months laster to find the farmer had discussed this idea with sixteen other families with land around his own; all of them wanted to become involved. From there, the plan snowballed – in January, 2008, Afghanistan Television interviewed him, and other farmers asked him for help in changing their fields from poppies to pomegranates. The local member of Parliament and a respected Elder in the Tribal system wanted to know more. A tribal meeting covering the entire Nangarhar Province was called, and 200 Tribal elders invited.
The tribal elders agreed to finish poppy cultivation and switch to growing pomegranates throughout the entire Nangarhar Province by next year, making the region of 1.3 million inhabitants opium poppy free for the first time in a hundred years. The elders told Brett that their decision was based not only on a desire to maintain a level of stability, but because he was the first person who had ever come to them as just an ordinary man rather than a member of a foreign government or a military advisor, someone who simply wanted to see positive change.
That's just bloody excellent. Our feel-good story for today. And the larger lesson is: trying to "nation build" using the Pottery Barn rule, when your first and last thought is for your own national interest instead of the sovereign interests of the people concerned, is always going to fail. People aren't dumb.
A Rose By Any Other Name
By Cernig
The AP reports an officially unofficial leak from the Obama team that closing Gitmo is a priority for the new administration.
Under plans being put together in Obama's camp, some detainees would be released and many others would be prosecuted in U.S. criminal courts.
That's good. This bit isn't so good:
A third group of detainees — the ones whose cases are most entangled in highly classified information — might have to go before a new court designed especially to handle sensitive national security cases, according to advisers and Democrats involved in the talks. Advisers participating directly in the planning spoke on condition of anonymity because the plans aren't final.
U.S. courts handle cases "entagled in highly classified information" on a reasonably regular basis and the forms for dealing with such cases are well established. That phrase is a euphemism (or "lie", to the unsophisticated). Spencer Ackerman has it exactly right:
If there's anything the military commissions process should have taught, it's that reinventing the legal system doesn't work, as evidenced by the bevy of military lawyers who have resigned in protest of the commissions. The concern, stripped of euphemism, is that the evidentiary basis for many trials of Guantanamo detainees -- including, in many cases, torture -- would never be admissible in any court worthy of the name. That's the Bush administration's legacy. But it can't be the basis for cheapening our legal system.
So we'll wait to see what proposal actually emerges. But consider not only that this is one of the first initiatives that Obama is pursuing -- it's one of the first that he's leaking, as well. This is as clear a signal as can be sent that the Bush era isn't just over, it will be actively rolled back. How far it actually gets rolled back we'll have to wait and see. And pressure.
If the US cannot get convictions in either civil or military courts under the full panoply of law, even if those trials have to be held partially in camera to protect necessary national security secrets as provided for in law already, then the US has scewed the pooch and tainted those prosecutions indelibly with torture, illegal rendition and kangaroo justice. Under those circumstances even Hannibal Lecter would walk - and anyone who understands why these things are anathema to normal jurisprudence would say that was a good thing as a universal standard even if no-one would be happy about individual instances.
If the Obama administration cannot see that, then they will have made themselves complicit in the massive crime that the Bush administration has perpetrated through Gitmo, Bagram , Abu Graib, and a host of secret prisons and illegal torture flights. It doesn't matter whether travesties of justice are conducted on the mainland U.S., at the resort in Cuba or in some undisclosed location - they're still travesties of justice. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet and any "hybrid" having any relationship to Bush's rigged tribunals would stink just as highly.
A Generation In The Wilderness? Part II
By Ron Beasley
Below I discussed the pragmatic advice from Arnold Schwarzenegger which will go unheeded. There is still more advice for the Republicans from conservative Rod Dreher of The Dallas Morning News. He thinks that the Republicans should oppose Obama at times but they must do it with ideas and not just the same old empty platitudes.
Conservatives must return to the philosophical sources of our tradition and reinterpret its insights and truths for the world we live in now. Ideas really do have consequences - as, obviously, does the lack of same. Yes, conservatives have to oppose the Obama Democrats when they overreach, but if the only response conservatives offer is defensive and obstreperous, they will not soon recover.
But most important they must recognize the Bush presidency and the conservative movement of the last eight years for the failure that it was.
Conservatives will go nowhere until the right owns up to the failures of the Bush years. They were chiefly a failure of competence and a corruption of professed ideals. They were also a failure of ideology. In particular:
•The idea that the American military is an omnipotent tool for spreading liberal democracy died in Iraq and Afghanistan. The right's romanticization of militarism, and its crusading pieties about the universality of democratic values, are done.
•The dogmatic conviction that the globalized free market is capable of regulating itself for the greater good of society is a spectacularly costly shibboleth, as even Alan Greenspan, the high priest of this religion, confessed recently.
•The GOP's knee-jerk hostility to environmental concerns is not only a betrayal of conservative tradition but also costs Republicans credibility with young voters. Similarly, though it's tough for social conservatives like me to admit it, we've lost the gay marriage battle, especially among the young. We're going to have to come to some sort of accommodation with it to protect religious liberty.
Dreher seems to recognize that both the neocons and theocons represent a dead end. But I see no evidence that anyone will listen to Mr Dreher either.
Over at TMV Pete Abel sees the writing on the wall.
In my evolution from a would-be reformer of the GOP to a supporter of President-elect Obama, I have been asked the inevitable “why” and “how” questions — and I have answered those questions, indirectly. But I’ve never gone so far as to admit what I will admit now: I am no longer a Republican. I am no longer a conservative.
To be clear: I still believe in many of the principles that first led me to the Republican Party. I still have a number of conservative tendencies. But of this party and movement, as they are defined today, I am no more.
There are some, I’m sure, who will ask why, rather than leaving the fold at this darkest of moments, I don’t join the countless other voices who are now in various stages of bemoaning the shape of the party, offering opinions on what went wrong, re-assessing fundamentals, and suggesting steps to reform.
Two reasons. First, I’m not convinced any of it will do any good.
November 09, 2008
A Generation In The Wilderness?
By Ron Beasley
I think it's healthy to have two relevant political parties but the Republican party is anything but healthy now and there are few signs it's going to improve anytime soon. Joe Gandelman reports that California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has some advice for his Republican party.
“I think the important thing for the Republican Party is now to also look at other issues that are very important for this country and not to get stuck in ideology,” the governor said in an interview broadcast on CNN this morning. “Let’s go and talk about healthcare reform. Let’s go and . . . fund programs if they’re necessary programs and not get stuck just on the fiscal responsibility.”
Schwarzenegger, a social moderate, long ago earned the enmity of many California Republicans, who believe he abandoned some of the fiscally conservative views he espoused when he ran for office five years ago and began proposing new spending. They cite, for instance, his failed plan to dramatically expand health insurance in the state. Last week, Schwarzenegger angered Republicans again by proposing a statewide sales tax increase to balance the budget.
But the governor has not so openly criticized the approach of the conservative bloc that dominates his party on the national level. He said he thought Republicans had “a very good party,” and he has no plans to leave it, because he agrees with their push to reduce restrictions on business and to remain strong on crime. Schwarzenegger said, however, that the GOP should support greater investment to build roads and fix schools and other “things that the American people want to have done.”
[....]
They should not “always just say, ‘This is spending. We can’t do that.’ No, don’t get stuck with that. We have heard that dialogue. Let’s move on.”
But the Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity Republicans have taken over the Republican Party and this is what we can expect:
GOP leader: Rebuild party based on 'sanctity of marriage'
The Republican brand is still alive and well, Rep. Mike Pence said on Fox News Sunday.
When asked by Chris Wallace what "conservative solutions" the GOP would bring to their current minority-party status, Pence said social issues like "the sanctity of marriage" will remain the backbone of the Republican platform.
"You build those conservative solutions, Chris, on the same time-honored principles of limited government, a belief in free markets, in the sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage," Pence said.
Yes this is the leadership of the Republican Party. Via John Cole we have this description of Mike Pence from Matt Yglesias:
And I can tell you this about Mike Pence: he has no idea what he’s talking about. The man is a fool, who deserves to be laughed at. He’s almost stupid enough to work in cable television.
Many of the moronic Republicans with a 16th century mindset have been defeated the last two election cycles but those who remain are still in charge of the Republican party. My 79 year old uncle who had never voted for a Democrat before cast his vote for Barack Obama. A party success is dependent on a base of the ignorant is destined to spend a long time in the wilderness.
The Proposition 8 aftermath
by Jay McDonough
California Proposition 8, a referendum on same sex marriages, passed on Tuesday and the state constitution will now be amended to ban marriages of homosexual couples in California. Reaction to the loss has been swift and startling. Lawsuits, confusion, and now anger. Over 20,000 protesters gathered last night in several California cities, now critical of the No on 8 campaign strategies and denouncing the Mormon church for their intensive involvement in the defeat of the initiative. More protests are planned for today.
Steve
Ramos, 46, of Los Angeles carried a banner through the streets of
Silver Lake with the spray-painted words "Teach tolerance, not hate."
Supporters
of the ballot proposition, he said, mixed "religion with politics" and
missed the main point. "Everyone should have equal rights."
(Robin) Tyler expressed frustration over the leadership of the unsuccessful campaign to defeat the ballot measure and lashed out at those who supported it. "The No on 8 people didn't want us to use the word 'bigots.' But that's what they are, bigots, bigots, bigots," Tyler said, bringing a round of cheers from the growing crowd. "We will never be made invisible again. Never again will we let them define who we are." (Link)
Out of state Mormons contributed millions of dollars to the Yes on 8 campaign and thousands of Mormons worked as grass roots volunteers. A backlash against the church is emerging.
For
the Mormon Church, it threatens a PR nightmare. The gay rights lobby
boasts scores of prominent celebrity supporters who have already
pledged vociferous support to the campaign to overturn Proposition 8.
The
country music singer Melissa Etheridge, a prominent lesbian, announced
yesterday that she will refuse to pay income tax until she's "allowed
the same rights" as other taxpayers. Instead, she pledged to donate
money to legal challenges arguing that the way Proposition 8 was put to
the voters was unconstitutional.
The Mormon Church is in damage
limitation mode. "No one on either side of the question should be
vilified, harassed or subject to erroneous information," it said in a
statement. (Link)
The Mormon's heavy involvement in Proposition 8 is leading some to call for a boycott of Utah, home of the Church of Latter Day Saints.
Utah's
growing tourism industry and the star-studded Sundance Film Festival
are being targeted for a boycott by bloggers, gay rights activists and
others seeking to punish the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints for its aggressive promotion of California's ban on gay marriage.
It
could be a heavy price to pay. Tourism brings in $6 billion a year to
Utah, with world-class skiing, spectacular red-rock country and the
film festival founded by Robert Redford among popular tourist draws. (Link)
This is missing the mark here. Utah is not the Mormon church and the Mormon church is not Utah. But there may be something that comes, in and of itself, from the threat of a boycott.
As recently as 1967, many states, with great public support, had laws
on the books banning interracial marriage. It seems unfathomable now
that that kind of bigotry existed only 40 years ago. Yet, it took a U.S.
Supreme Court decision (Loving vs. Virginia) to finally rule those bans on
interracial marriages were unconstitutional.
Civil rights are nearly always gained with the convergence of
several different factors; the publics awakened awareness of bigotry,
the resulting shame, and a subsequent, innate desire to rise above that
bigotry and right the wrong. And just like the case of interracial
marriage, the public consensus will surely evolve to an acceptance that
allowing gays and lesbians the benefits and joy of making that binding
marital commitment is a most fundamental right, and should not only be
allowed, but encouraged in a society that values family and fidelity.
So, perhaps something good can come from the defeat of Proposition 8. Maybe protests and boycott threats are what it takes for a not quite yet aware electorate to understand that when liberty is denied to some, it's a stain on our national character. There's a clear trend - same sex marriage will be legal. It can happen soon. Or it can happen a little later. But it will happen.
Post Election Thoughts
By Ron Beasley
While the election of the first black president is significant this election is also a reminder that race as an issue is still alive in the US. Ronald Brownstein reminds us that this election was not about Barack Obama but about George W. Bush.
It detracts nothing from Barack Obama's achievement to note that his historic electoral success rests atop the epic political failure of George W. Bush. If Obama is shrewd enough, there's a lesson for the new president in the failure of the old one.
Bush and his chief political strategist, Karl Rove, dreamed of cementing a lasting Republican electoral majority. Instead, Bush has left his party in rubble.
The 2008 election represented a final grade on Bush's bruising and polarizing political strategy. To a degree unmatched by modern presidents, Bush governed more by mobilizing his base than by reaching out to voters and interests beyond it. His legislative strategy centered on minimizing dissent among congressional Republicans; his electoral strategy revolved around maximizing his vote among Republicans and conservative independents. On both fronts, his guiding principle was deepen, not broaden.
Through Bush's first term, that approach generated undeniable successes. The congressional Republican majority, demonstrating levels of party unity unequaled since around 1900, passed key elements of his agenda. A skillfully engineered surge in Republican turnout powered his re-election and GOP congressional gains in 2002 and 2004.
But through Bush's second term, this insular strategy grew unsustainable. By targeting so many of his policies toward the priorities of his conservative base, Bush ignited volcanic opposition from Democratic voters and steadily alienated independents. Because he had done so little to court voters beyond his ardent core, he lacked a well of good will to draw on when events turned against him, first with Katrina and Iraq, later with the economy. His disapproval rating soared to heights unsurpassed in modern polling.
That ferocious dissatisfaction fueled the Democratic recapture of Congress in 2006 by stampeding independent voters in their direction. Discontent with Bush again provided a huge tailwind for Democrats this week. Exit polls showed that a breathtaking 71% of voters Tuesday disapproved of Bush's performance. Two-thirds of them voted for Obama. That in itself effectively sealed the election against John McCain.
John McCain spent a lot of time reminding us that he was not George W. Bush but what he never said what he would do differently. Only two thirds of those who didn't approve of Bush voted for Obama. My guess is that if Obama had been white he would have won by 15% not 7%.
Greatness
So what will the Obama presidency be like. The opportunity for "greatness" is thrust on people. George W. Bush had the opportunity on 911 and we know how that worked out. Bush and his administration chose greed and power over greatness which resulted in Obama's opportunity. As little as a year ago I was referring to Obama as an empty suit - I was wrong. He has both the opportunity and the personality and intellect to be "great".
Schadenfreude
By BJ
Jim Cunningham offers A Progressive's Guide to Gloating for the next few years.
Iraq Provincial Elections On For Jan 31st
By Cernig
Finally, Iraqi authorities have confirmed the date of long-postponed provincial elections. There will be a roughly two month campaign season and elections on January 31.
Here's where the games start in earnest, because the Green Zone elites are in serious trouble if the elections go forward without a "guiding finger on the scales", so to speak:
According to a survey published by an Iraqi NGO, the Al-Amal Association, only 22.7 percent of 12,000 people polled in 11 provinces said they will vote for religious parties or blocks.
Voting for independent candidates is deemed a priority for 26.3 percent of the surveyed public of 11,000 Iraqis, while 23.7 percent said they will select democratic and secular blocks.
In the last provincial elections, in December 2005, religiously-affiliated parties won all the seats in the councils, with the exception of the Kurdish region and Kirkuk.
Expect every dirty trick in the book, from ballot stuffing to candidate assassinations to voter supression at gunpoint. And remember that secular candidates were meant to do a lot, lot better than they actually did in every set of Iraqi elections so far - for pretty much the same reasons.
More, the date sets aside four provinces, pointing up the "Kurdish Problem":
First scheduled for October 1, the polls were postponed when the national parliament struggled to pass an election law because of concerns over the disputed oil-rich northern province of Kirkuk.
The January ballot will be held in only 14 of Iraq's 18 provinces after the new law excluded Kirkuk and the three Kurdish provinces of Arbil, Dohuk and Sulaimaniyah.
Elections in the three Kurdish provinces will not be held until after March 2009 and the existing multi-communal council will continue to administer the province of Kirkuk.
Kirkuk is the biggest potential flashpoint in Iraq nowadays and the Kurds are using every trick they can think of to write their own writ in the areas they claim. Right now, they're digging their heels in and refusing to consider amendments to the Constitution, which have been seen as just as important to reconcilliation attempts as these elections.
I just don't see these elections, and the subsequent protracted playing out of Kurdish differences with the rest of the country, as being violence free. The question really is how bad will it be and how much will resultant bad blood retard rather than advance reconcilliation. There's no easy fix, but at least there's now a firm, Iraqi-imposed, exit date for the US and its coalition allies. I always found it ridiculous that the Pottery Barn rule had been reinterpreted as "we broke it, so we get to tell you how to run your store from now on".
Iraqis And Brits Remember Dead Together
By Cernig
It's Remembrance Sunday in the UK, the Sunday closest to the 11th of November, when at 11 minutes past 11 the Great War ended in 1918. A day to remember those fallen in Britain's wars - almost a million and a half in the two World Wars alone.
And in the middle of the desert in Iraq, a remembrance service for Britons fallen on that foreign field, along with the unknown but far larger number of Iraqis killed:
It looks like another combat mission, but elements of the 7th Armoured Brigade have gathered for arguably one of the most unique Remembrance Sunday services.
The location, a remote British war memorial, built in down town Basra in 1921, moved by Saddam Hussein in 1997, and rediscovered by troops working here in July this year.
Over 40,000 British and Commonwealth troops are remembered on the walls of this enormous building and despite the logistical problems and security risks the military were determined to conduct a final service of remembrance in the desert before they depart next year.
In recent months the British forces have been living and working with their Iraqi counterparts in 18 mentoring sites dotted around Basra.
On Sunday the Iraqi soldiers joined the British for the service, the troops standing side by side throughout the traditional two minutes of silence.
... "It was good of the Iraqi army to come to this and it was good of the Imam and the Padre to work out a combined service, it can be very difficult," Lt Colonel Felix Gedney, head of the mentoring operation in Basra, told me.
This was a good thing to do, on so many levels, on such a sad and thoughtful day when we should be remembering what we have in common as mere humans, not what divides us into warring factions.
The Double-Edged Sword of the Imperial Presidency
By BJ
The Washington Post is reporting that Obama is set to hit the ground running in regards to reversing many of the none-to-popular Bush administration presidential decrees on things like stem cell research, climate change, and reproductive rights.
From what I can see, I don’t have any objections to the actual policy goals, which is why I probably see a lot of reactions like Hilzoy’s this morning.
These are wonderful changes. After the last eight years, the very idea that they might occur not as the result of a long drawn-out battle, but just like that, is amazing.
Sure, it is nice to see your chosen policy goals being enacted without all the fuss and muss of drawn-out Congressional battles, but must I remind everyone that it was Bush enacting his policy goals without consulting Congress that got a lot of us upset about how they were concentrating authority in the Executive Branch?
Now, I’m not going to complain too bitterly about Obama using the very same power to reverse the worst excesses of Bush’s administration, but ultimately we should be working to see that this kind of power in the Executive Branch is again constrained. One of the arguments others and I always used to try and convince so-called conservatives that Bush’s usurpation of power wasn’t a good thing was to imagine that power being wielded by a liberal Democrat. Obama’s more of a centrist, but to the far-right that counts as a radical leftist in most matters, so they will soon be getting a taste of what we were warning about, even if they fail to understand that it was their uncritical support of the Imperial Presidency principles that handed Obama the tools he will be using.
So the right is likely to suddenly rediscover the founder’s preference for checks and balances and rail incessantly against the powers they so happily supported accruing to their own guy. Call them hypocrites if you wish, but note that it is the right position.
The old saw about power corrupting holds ever true, and with power shifting to the left in a couple of months, you can all but smell the salivating of those looking to use that power to do what they think of as good. It is one of the reasons that it is far easier to accrue power to the government than it is to take it away. Once in power, people want to use it, not give it up. It is also why I figure under even the best of circumstances, the powers accumulated to the presidency under the Bush/Cheney years will never be fully dissipated, but we need to work hard to ensure that Obama replaces at least some of the checks and balances, even if it makes passing his agenda that much harder.
Because sooner or later, power will again shift, and someone whose agenda you don’t agree with will be sitting in the Oval Office, and if Obama simply continues Bush’s legacy, then all of those “wonderful changes” will disappear at the stroke of a pen, and what could replace them may be far, far worse.
Because as the founders could tell you, you don’t put checks and balances in place because you believe the current leader is a tyrant, you do so because you can’t guarantee that no tyrant will find his way to power in the future.
Whether or not the left remembers that in the coming months will be a test of their hypocrisy.
November 08, 2008
Crowd Sourcing Transit
By Fester:
Via e-mail, the Ad-Hoc Heretic of Broken Big Apple, one of the more interesting young thinkers on operationalizing distributed resiliency and resilient communities is this interesting RFP on how to improve Chicago transit:
the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce, is looking for innovative and new strategies to dramatically increase the use of public transportation to reduce the environmental impact of the greenhouse gas emissions caused by automobiles. Specifically, the Seeker is looking for innovative approaches and strategies to increase ridership on the region’s public transportation system to 1 billion rides per year. The Chamber estimates that a total of 800,000 new individuals must be convinced to ride public transportation to achieve this level of ridership.
This is from Innocentive, an open source request for proposals and recommendations to improve tough problems. I don't have any good ideas to start with right now, but this is a very interesting challenge.
Southwest Pennsylvania Congressional District PVI changes
By Fester:
I am rethinking my initial analysis that Pennsylvania will be the most active Congressional battleground in 2010. I had not anticipated the size of the Appalachia versus the rest of the state effect that actually occurred in the 2008 general election. This will significantly change the Partisan Voter Indexes for a couple of Congressional districts which will move them out of the probably competitive zones to the barely competitive absent a mistress choking incident.
The New York Times published this very interesting chart that depicts the counties where John McCain in 2008 outperformed George W. Bush in 2004. The obvious conclusion is that the line follows the Appalachian Mountain ranges. The northern edge of this zone is southwestern Pennsylvania. This zone includes PA-4, 12, 14 and 18. PA-4, 12 and 14 are Democratically held districts. However PA-4 has been a slight Republican lean district, while PA-12 has been a lean Dem district and PA-14 is a heavy base Dem district. PA-18 is a Republican District with a slight Republican lean and a very conservative Democratic registration advantage.
Without pulling any precinct level data, I am making a couple of estimates on the Obama-McCain splits by Congressional District in SW PA and this area has become significantly more Republican leaning. PA-4 which is represented by Dem. Rep Altmire probably went to McCain by five points, which means it is roughly a R+9 or R+10 district for a one year PVI. This is a significant change from the previous R+3 rating. It will probably be rated an R+7 district for 2010. This SHOULD be a natural GOP target seat. However I am not sure who is on the GOP bench for this district.
PA-18 saw Obama underperform by 8 points in Washington County, 14 points in Westmoreland County, and overpeformed by 5 points in Allegheny County. However the portions Allegheny County that are in the district underperformed the Obama margins that are seen in the Mon Valley, the East Hills suburbs and most importantly Pittsburgh. I am guessing that McCain won the district outright and probably won it by a few points. So for this cycle, PA-18 is probably an R+9 or so district. This should be an easy GOP hold despite the large Democratic registration advantage in the district.
Now moving over to the other side of the state, PA-13 which is a projected open seat as its current representative, Rep. Allyson Schwartz is rumored to be considering a run for the Senate. PA-13 is in the Philly Burbs which went heavily Democratic. PA-11, Kanjorski's district, is still a reliable Democratic tilt district and the scare he received should be sufficient to make sure he works his ass off for the next two years.
I had initially anticipated eight heavily contested races in 2010. Now I think we'll see three Republican challenges (PA-3, PA-4, PA-11), two Democratic challenges in PA-15 (Rep. Dent) and PA-6 (Rep. Gerlach) and then token challengers in PA-18, and PA-12.
My side is better than your side, or is it?
By BJ
In my meanderings through the blogosphere, I came across this post at the PoliGazette where Michael van der Galien tries to explain why conservatives were so much more gracious in accepting Obama’s win than “the left” were in accepting Bush’s victories in 2000 and 2004. The comment thread, to say the least, was quite interesting, and I have to feel sorry for Justin Gardner of Donklephant, who pointed out that 2000 wasn’t exactly the cleanest election victory in US history and that the 2004 re-election of Bush was an entirely different animal than a non-incumbent coming to power and has spent the rest of thread futilely trying to get some kind of productive discussion going.
Gardner did force the gazetteers to admit that there are some right-wing blogs that engage in hyper-partisan hackery, but of course the left is so much worse. A couple of comments from Jason in the thread are indicative of the argument:
Continue reading "My side is better than your side, or is it?" »
Increase Class Room Sizes
By Fester:
Increasing class room sizes is most likely good policy.
We are entering a fiscal cycle of very limited resources as tax revenues look like they are cratering at the local and state level. Almost all local and state governments have balanced budget requirements. Most/all of these entities have some space to play with bond issues, rainy day funds and 'accidental' deficits. However those are temporary fixes which will be quickly exhausted unless there is a massive infusion of federal dollars to the state and local governments. State and local governments will continue to cut their budgets. K-12 education, cops and prisons will be the areas that are politically toughest to cut as each has both a significant internal constiuency and significant public support.
However the variable portions of state budgets that are not tied to these three areas only have so much room for cuts. These areas will be under pressure to either reduce expenditures or freeze growth rates so as to allow inflation to eat into the real value of services. Ideally, the reductions in services will occur in ways that have minimal impacts on outcomes. For instance, diverting marijuana possession convicts from prison to intensive probation and counseling may be such an approach. Another is ending the trend towards smaller class room sizes.
Smaller classroom sizes is an intuitively popular program. The theory behind it is simple --- teachers are important to educational success, and the more 'teacher experience' that a child receives, the better. Furthermore, reducing classroom sizes reduces the probability of hard to handle trouble maker networks as three troublemakers are exponentially harder to handle than one or two and a class of 25 kids is more likely to have three or more troublemakers than a class of 17 kids, and the smaller classes reduce the number of unique learning styles so more customization is possible. Teachers like smaller classes as their jobs become easier and it provides more jobs. Parents like it for the above intuitive reasons. Politicians like it because everyone else likes it, and who wants to vote against the children....
Reducing classroom sizes produces statistically significant but small positive academic improvement outcomes. HOWEVER, it is a very expensive intervention. Teachers are the largest single short term cost while increased capital spending to build more rooms is a significant long term cost for this intervention. The return on investment is fairly low.
In a flush budgetary environment paying for effective but inefficient programs and interventions may be defensible, but in tight times, we need to think of something different. Dr. Yeh at the University of Minnesota, in a talk I attended this week, and in several publications, argues that other interventions have lower initial and sustaining costs while producing similar or greater academic improvement outcomes. He advocates for a rapid assessment/iterative loop learning system but others such as positive behavioral support also show results that are as effective and more efficient as reducing classroom sizes and student:teacher ratios. Extending the school year in districts or basins with high levels of disadvantaged youth is another intervention that should produce significant results at lower costs as the killer for academic achievement in disadvantaged areas is the summer slide of knowledge as there are far fewer reinforcing and enriching activites available for these youth.
Increasing classroom sizes is a policy that we should strongly consider as those resources that are currently devoted to reducing student:teacher ratio have higher and better uses. In a tight budgetary environment, we need to think creatively on how we can get the best outcomes on a smaller budget. Low student:teacher ratios is not the preferred system.
Blogging Obama's Administration
By Cernig
Jeralyn Merritt has an excellent post about blogging during a Democratic administration: the short answer is that there's going to be plenty to be critical about as well as to supportive of. I feel the same way. Blogs have become an important facet of political debate and have often replaced the mainstream media in it's Fourth Estate role of providing information and interpretations of the facts independently of government spin. There's no reason to change that from Newshoggers point of view.
We'll continue to bring "news less travelled" and foreign affairs posts, as well as domestic politics. Offtimes, we will agree with President-Elect Obama's policies and broad style - as we do with his emphasis on negotiation and diplomacy rather than unwarranted belligerence. That's already showing fruit: Iraqi politicians are sure that Obama can help them make a transition to being the determiners of their own nation's future once again, North Korea is hopeful that it can come in from the cold through negotiation and even Russia, despite some hype suggesting otherwise, is hopeful that Obama won't be a saber rattler in the Bush mould.
A Kremlin statement said Obama and Medvedev "expressed the determination to create constructive and positive interaction for the good of global stability and development" and agreed that their countries had a common responsibility to address "serious problems of a global nature."
To that end, according to the Kremlin statement, Medvedev and Obama believe an "early bilateral meeting" should be arranged.
But there have also been some worrisome aspects to Obama's policy and team building, which we at Newshoggers have not and will not soft-soap. I, for one, recall all too clearly the empty promises of Tony Blair coming hard on the heels of the collapse of Thatcherism. There's a real risk that Obama, like Blair still far better than the alternative, may fall short on his promises or turn out to have misled on them.
In that respect Obama's staffing choices so far, replete with Clinton-era old guard, are a worry. There's no chance of the President-Elect or anyone who has his ear noticing this tiny blog, but I would still advise him if I could to put together a "Devil's Advocate" team of "young guns" to offer a more progressive and fresher alternative to the Cold Warrior mindset. In foreign policy, names that easily spring to mind include Vali Nasr, Juan Cole, Barnett Rubin, Marc Lynch, Travis Sharp and Matt Duss. In economics, Paul Krugman, Nouriel Roubini and Pat Garofalo might be apposite choices.
Maybe, with such "oppo" teams contributing, Obama wouldn't be so given to saying Iran is seeking nuclear weapons when all the evidence says it isn't, or to claim Russia invaded Georgia when the Georgians were the aggressors. He'd perhaps want to rethink the potentially disasterous interventionist aspects of his policy on Afghanistan and Pakistan too. Jeralyn has a list too:
When we get a President who vows to impose a moratorium on executions, close Guantanamo, and try accused terrorists under the Code of Military Justice or in federal courts, who pushes Congress to abolish mandatory minimum sentences, put a lockbox on social security benefits and provide mandatory health care, including affordable and compassionate nursing home care for the elderly, and who has ended the war in Iraq and promised not to get us into other wars preemptively or under false pretenses
These are the kind of things that we should be keeping an eye on as an Obama administration comes together, and here at Newshoggers we certainly will, being critical when we feel we should no matter what partisan politics might ask.
Update: Nicole at Crooks and Liars comments by email:
The one thing that I would caution about being too reactionary about is the inclusion of former Clintonites in the administration. First, just because you worked for Clinton doesn't mean that you are a DLCer. Second, just by default, because they're the only Democrats we've had in 30 years, if you hire Democrats in DC, chances are pretty good that you're going to get someone who worked for Clinton. While there are some things that definitely detract from Clinton's legacy (NAFTA, DOMA, DADT come to mind), the prosperity and global status we enjoyed with Clinton are not exactly something we should be running away from.
She has a point and it's one I wish I'd made clearer in the original post - Clinton Dems are, mostly, the only ones available with experience of being in an administration so 'we go to the White House with the Dem staffers we've got, not the Dem staffers we wish we had', as it were. And not all of them are neo-liberal interventionists. But I think my idea of "oppo teams" would just be strengthened by the inclusion of those less awful Clintonistas.
Meanwhile, Glenn Greenwald notes that of course it's too early to say how an Obama presidency is going to turn out, however:
It makes perfect sense -- for the reasons Digby so aptly described this week -- for people to start pressuring Obama now to pay attention to their political principles and agendas. And it's certainly likely that Obama will end up doing many, many things that warrant and provoke intense criticism. I have no doubt about that. But he's entitled to actually start doing things -- on Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, civil liberties, the economy, and otherwise -- before judgments are formed.
Obama's First Presser
By Cernig
It was Barack Obama's first press conference today and the consensus is that he handled himself very well indeed, a refreshing change from stumblin', bumblin' Incurious George. Only one minor fact-checking gaffe - which led to him apologising to Nancy Reagan for saying she held seances at the White House when in actual fact she consulted an astrologer, which is just as daft. It was apparently Hillary who held seances, even if that's not what she wants to call them.
However, over at Unqualified Offerings, Thoreau has a more substantial criticism of Obama's actual policy plans:
You know, for all the decades of talk about fuel efficiency, alternative energy, and energy independence, the most fuel efficient personal vehicles on our roads are primarily foreign brands. So why, pray tell, should bailing out inefficient Detroit automakers be the top priority if our goal is energy efficiency?
And the easy answer is that, like the big finance houses, they are too big to fail.
November 07, 2008
Fools on the hill
By Ron Beasley
I've been quiet the last couple of days as I have tried to digest the events of the week. The most interesting news comes from the losers and the most interesting, but not only, events revolve around the attacks on Sarah Palin. I don't think she is the sharpest knife in the kitchen but I don't really buy much of the information about just how stupid she is. More importantly I don't believe this is entirely coming from the McCain campaign - it is coming from the Romney 2012 campaign. Go for it I say. This activity well result in a long run for the Democrats. They are attacking the Evangelicals own diva and the Evangelicals already don't feel comfortable with the Mormon, Romney. They will feel even less comfortable when they realize he is trying to kneecap their very own Sarah.
But it gets even better - the Republicans just don't get it. Dick ( a nation of whiners) Armey is still trying to defend trickle down economics. But that's not all. Many of us predicted that the wingnuts would claim that McCain lost because he was not "conservative" enough:
Moderates to blame for GOP losses, conservative leader says
A conservative leader Friday laid the Republican Party's poor showing at the polls at the feet of moderates who, he argues, led the party away from its core principles.
Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council told CNN that conservatives need to take back control of the GOP if the party is to return to its winning ways.
"Moderates never beat conservatives. We've seen that in past elections," he said.
Rejecting suggestions that the conservative movement was viewed as being out of touch with the electorate, Perkins says the Republican Party needs to go back to basics.
"It's a return to fundamental conservative principles that Ronald Reagan showed work and that people can be attracted to," Perkins said.
Fools on the hill indeed. I'll have more later but for now I'll leave you with the Dixie Chicks video of the Stevie Nicks' classic "Landslide", a metaphor for the week.
Bush Administration stalls on prisoner abuse photo release
by Jay McDonough
In September, a federal appeals court ordered the release of photos depicting the abuse of prisoners held by the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan. The photos, totaling 87, include those previously seen when the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse story first broke. The Bush Administration continues to delay the release of the photos. Today the Administration requested a review of the decision by all 12 appeals court judges.
"This
petition is a transparent attempt to delay accountability for the
widespread abuse of prisoners held in U.S. custody abroad by keeping
the public in the dark," Amrit Singh, and ACLU staff attorney, said in
a news release Friday . "These photographs demonstrate that the abuse
of prisoners held in U.S. custody abroad was not aberrational and not
confined to Abu Ghraib, but the result of policies adopted by the
highest-ranking officials in the administration. The immediate release
of these photos is critical to bringing an end to the Bush
administration's torture policies and for preventing prisoner abuse in
the future."
Although the government stopped trying to fight the full release of Abu Ghraib photos after they all were independently published in 2006, the ACLU says the Pentagon continues to keep hidden 29 additional images from at least seven different locations in Afghanistan and Iraq. (Link)
If you care to see what our government has sanctioned, here's a link to some photos of abuses at Abu Ghraib. (WARNING: GRAPHIC IMAGES, INCLUDES NUDITY AND DEATH)
Heaping on the Foreign Policy Plate
by anderson
Mere days after Russian president Dmitri Medvedev rattled post-election sabres on missile defense, a clear sign that he intended to push Russia's concerns to the front of an Obama agenda, Medvedev has hailed the opening of a new General Motors plant near St. Petersburg. Obverse to the open diplomatic hostility recently on display since the Georgian war, the new plant signifies growing economic ties between the US and Russia and Medvedev praised GM for living up to their agreement despite the worsening economic outlook for the company.
"General Motors has done everything to carry out the responsibilities it took upon itself," Medvedev said at the ceremony, adding that it was an ideal example of economic cooperation between Russia and the United States.Which perhaps indicates -- I'm speculating wildly here -- that GM might seek some financial relief from Moscow since the Bush administration has so far rebuffed a request for $10 billion in aid to grease the wheels of a merger with Chrysler, despite the already agreed $25 billion bailout measure. If merger is still on the minds of auto makers in Detroit, it seems doubtful that Moscow can or would help, both from a financial and a political perspective; I doubt Congress would approve a merger in the American automotive industry financed by Russia. That would look entirely unseemly. And Russia is in no great position to offer such help, as that country is suffering financial fallout effects as bad or worse than almost anywhere else.The U.S. automotive giant has pushed ahead with expansion plans in Russia even as the global financial crisis cut demand and local car makers slash production.
Medvedev also called the ceremony a symbol of Russia's resilience in the face of the crisis.
"We are witnessing a project completed in spite of the financial problems which the world is facing today…"
But such fiscal maneuvering is probably unlikely. Plant construction began months ago, long before the shake down of Wall Street began. What the new GM plant does indicate is precisely what Medvedev said it did: the economic ties between the US and Russia are close, and the US should no more consider Russia an enemy than any other large economy
Of course, that reality does not well serve the purposes of Washington's foreign policy establishment and, by extension, its military industrial complex, which constantly seeks enemies abroad to justify a broad spectrum of weapons systems and other defense contractor boondoggles. But such cooperation could be used by Obama to indicate that Russia is an economic partner, not a threatening adversary.
I say "could be" because, in all likelihood, it won't be. Such radical notions do not easily go down the raspy throats of the Beltway consensus crowd, especially one that is looking for any and all ways to continue justifying a $600 billion Pentagon budget. And if Obama has demonstrated anything with his klatch of foreign policy advisors, which has included the likes of life-long Russophobe Zbigniew Brzezinski (who still thinks his advice a "great success" to fund the Afghanistan proxy war that saw a million people killed), it is that he is as much a part of the consensus on US foreign policy as anyone. Nonetheless, Obama should not be so easily dissuaded from casting off the shackles of outdated thinking on Russia and pursue overtures of cooperation with Russia. After all, we and Europe are doing a tremendous amount of business with them.
Though it seemed the new administration might be the target of Medvedev's post-election announcement -- that Russia would deploy short range missiles directed at Poland in direct retaliation for the missile shield agreement -- weirdly enough, the extant Bush administration issued forth new proposals to Moscow, hoping, it would seem, to assuage the Kremlin's concerns about the missile defense installation.
Russia on Friday received new proposals from the United States to reduce nuclear arms and provide greater access to the Bush administration’s planned missile defense system, as leaders in Washington moved to calm tensions between the two nations.After embarking on a policy path that seemed designed to heighten international tension for the incoming administration, that the Bush administration is making some small effort toward Moscow's concerns appears strange indeed. It won't work, of course -- Moscow understandably does not want American missile bases next door -- and this may simply be the White House's attempt to look reasonable, knowing full well that the proposals will be rejected, that the entire missile defense effort must be dumped according to Moscow. Obama should scrap the whole notion as worthless, unnecessarily aggravating and unworkable; a project that doesn't work to prevent a threat that does not exist. Unfortunately, that is what is known as "perfect pork" in Washington: billions of dollars ostensibly for national security on a project that won't ever need to actually do anything.The new American proposals, reported earlier in the Wall Street Journal, would allow Russian military officials to inspect the American installations. Washington has also proposed reducing stockpiles of nuclear warheads in both countries, as well as long-range nuclear weapons.
Meanwhile, down in the Caucasus, protesting President Mikhail Saakashvili never gets tired, as Georgia's opposition parties have decided the time is also ripe to stage protests demanding actual free and fair elections. They do so on the anniversary of Saakashvili's rubber bullet crackdown on anti-governmen protests last year.
"We are starting a new wave of civil confrontation, and we will not give up until new elections are called," opposition leader Kakha Kukava said.While the near target of the promised protests is clearly Saakashvili, the far target should be viewed as the new Obama administration and it comes with the implicit requirement that Washington discontinue support for Saakashvili and his anti-democratic tendencies. Of course, backing away from Saakashvili will be far easier for Obama now that mainstream American media are reporting on the evidence of Georgian aggression and war crimes.
These developments and more -- much more -- will be waiting for Obama on his first day in the White House. Considering their role in instigating these and the vast litany of other problems Obama will face, it seems highly unlikely that the Bush administration will make much of an effort to reduce these many self-induced frictions. Obama surely has his plate full. I hope he has a strong appetite.
[p.s. I never considered this before now, but how pleasantly refreshing and deliciously different it is to write the phrase "Obama administration." I think we can all agree we would like that to remain so.]
Just go Joe
By Libby
Reid and Lieberman had some kind of private confab yesterday. Here's Joe's press statement afterward.
Options? He has options all right. He should opt to not let the door hit him on the way out.
Jane Hamsher tells us he's having a series of meetings with Reid to decide what to do. What's to decide? He should resign his committee gracefully and leave the caucus for his new BFFs in the GOP. Make it official already. He hasn't voted with the Democrats on anything important in literally years.
Why bother with this silly charade? They don't need him if he doesn't come through the votes anyway and if he goes to the GOP then he can be all bi-partisanish when he crosses the aisle to support President Obama's proposals.
It's a simple choice. Joe must go. If you would like to make that clear to the Dems, sign the No More Joe petition.
Cutting Environmental Protections
By BJ
Fester had a couple of ideas yesterday about shortening the time between the election date and the date of the inauguration, with a couple of clauses to prevent CYA-type Presidential pardons during the lame-duck period, and in order to avoid this kind of chicanery.
— In the next few weeks, the Bush administration is expected to relax environmental-protection rules on power plants near national parks, uranium mining near the Grand Canyon and more mountaintop-removal coal mining in Appalachia.
The administration is widely expected to try to get some of the rules into final form by the week before Thanksgiving because, in some cases, there's a 60-day delay before new regulations take effect. And once the rules are in place, undoing them generally would be a more time-consuming job for the next Congress and administration.
I’d noted the proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act before, but the scope of proposed changes go well beyond that. The “relaxation” of both the uranium and mountain-top mining regulations will put the drinking water of millions of people at risk. And that’s not the only parting gift Bush is giving to the coal industry.
Under the Clean Air Act, plants that are updated must install pollution-control technology if they'll produce more emissions. The rule change would allow plants to measure emissions on an hourly basis, rather than their total yearly output. This way, plants could run for more hours and increase overall emissions without exceeding the threshold that would require additional pollution controls.
January 20th can’t come soon enough.
Georgian Aggression
By Cernig
Finally, the NYT is helping the American public play catch-up with Europeans on the conflict in the Caucusus. Across the pond, it's been generally accepted for quite some time now that the Georgians were the primary aggressors who turned a fairly low-scale civil war into a full-on military conflict with the local superpower, who then took a mile instead of an inch. Here in the US, it's all been about the Russians invading Georgia, as if that happened first, with both presidential candidates accepting that narrative.
But...
Newly available accounts by independent military observers of the beginning of the war between Georgia and Russia this summer call into question the longstanding Georgian assertion that it was acting defensively against separatist and Russian aggression.
Instead, the accounts suggest that Georgia’s inexperienced military attacked the isolated separatist capital of Tskhinvali on Aug. 7 with indiscriminate artillery and rocket fire, exposing civilians, Russian peacekeepers and unarmed monitors to harm.
The observers in question all being members of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, or O.S.C.E. monitoring team, led by two experienced British military officers.
President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia has characterized the attack as a precise and defensive act. But according to observations of the monitors, documented Aug. 7 and Aug. 8, Georgian artillery rounds and rockets were falling throughout the city at intervals of 15 to 20 seconds between explosions, and within the first hour of the bombardment at least 48 rounds landed in a civilian area. The monitors have also said they were unable to verify that ethnic Georgian villages were under heavy bombardment that evening, calling to question one of Mr. Saakashvili’s main justifications for the attack.
All of which had been previously reported from other sources, just not prominently here in the US. Shelling civilian targets in this way is a war crime - something the NYT even now steers clear of but that the BBC has reported on in some depth. The media here isn't reporting on Georgian leader Saakashvili's domestic troubles either. He's had to fire both his Prime Minister and his Army Chief recently, over 10,000 protestors against his continued rule demonstrated Friday and the democratically elected opposition have asked that foreign aid to Georgia be carefully monitored so that Misha and his cronies don't line their own pockets with it. Saakashvili's response has been to accuse all his opponents of being Russian agents, which is historically what he does just before he calls out the police with clubs.
Now that McCain is out of the running, it seems that the US media are rather more inclined to risk "political balance" for accurate reporting on Georgia. Which may well soon have Americans asking why they are supporting the tie-munching, dissent-bashing neocon in charge there and offering him a place at the NATO table and aid to prop up his rule, instead of just supporting Georgia the country. As Will Bunch says "Just in case you needed an after-the-fact reason to be glad we're not talking about President-elect McCain".
Crimping the right's cash flow
By Fester:
Bloomberg reports that one of the right wing's biggest funders is having some serious cash issues:
billionaire Sheldon Adelson's casino company, fell the most in New York trading since going public after saying it may default on debt and face bankruptcy.
The casino owner, which had $8.8 billion in long-term debt at the end of June, said in a regulatory filing today that it probably won't meet the requirements of loans arranged by Citigroup Inc., Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. unless it cuts spending on developments, boosts earnings at its Las Vegas Strip casinos and raises more capital.
He was the largest funder of Freedom Watch, the right wing political action group that was supposed to the be the GOP savior this cycle as it could spend unlimited money on 'educational' ads.
The institutional right is highly dependent on a few very large individual and institutional donors that are highly dependent on the financial industry, heavy industry, and oil. So what happens if these core foundations see their endowments fall in line with the rest of the market? Does wingnut welfare get crimped?
Employment Ass Kicking
By Fester:
That is an ass-kicking. The Bureau of Labor Statistics October employment release is fugly:
Nonfarm payroll employment fell by 240,000 in October, and the unemployment rate
rose from 6.1 to 6.5 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department
of Labor reported today. October's drop in payroll employment followed declines of
127,000 in August and 284,000 in September, as revised. Employment has fallen by
1.2 million in the first 10 months of 2008; over half of the decrease has occurred
in the past 3 months. In October, job losses continued in manufacturing, construc-
tion, and several service-providing industries. Health care and mining continued
to add jobs.
The consensus guesstimate was roughly 200,000 jobs lost in October, and that number got smashed. More importantly, were the massive revisions as September's revision makes October look better.
Expect unemployment benefit extensions in the very near future.
November 06, 2008
Focus On The Family Compares Obama To Nazis
By Cernig
Two days after Obama and the Democratic Party won a ringing 7 million refusal of rightwing fearmongering and hate, the extreme right are unrepentant and none the wiser. Smintheus at Unbossed writes:
This evening James Dobson's Focus on the Family Action sent out a fundraising email to members that likened the victories of Barack Obama and congressional Democrats in Tuesday's election to the Nazi bombing of England during World War II. The author of this vile letter is Tom Minnery, Senior Vice President of Focus on the Family Action. It was nearly inevitable that anger over losing the 2008 election would soon provoke right-wing extremists to violate Godwin's Law. Obama's victory in Colorado may have been particularly galling for the Colorado Springs based Focus on the Family, which has been heavily involved in the political campaign this year advocating for conservative issues. James Dobson personally endorsed the McCain-Palin ticket this fall.
Focus on the Family has not so far posted this hateful fundraising letter on the web. Here is the opening section of the letter:
Dear Friend,
The spirit of Winston Churchill was alive and well on Tuesday night at Focus on the Family Action headquarters.
You may recall that in the most desperate days of World War II – when Great Britain was being pounded daily by Hitler’s Luftwaffe – that Winston Churchill called on his countrymen not to despair from danger but to rise to the challenge.
It goes on in exactly the same vein, saying that:
Our nation has never faced the kind of anti-family, pro-abortion assault that we’re likely to see in the coming weeks and months. We don’t have to guess what the Left will do now that they control Congress and the White House; they’ve told us.
What are FoF so upset about? Freedom of choice, freedom of marriage and legislation to combat discrimination against gays in the workplace. The last, according to FoF, will be an assault on FoF members' religious freedom. Nice of them to state so clearly that theirs is a path of bigotry.
Obama has their number.
That new guy with the “tan”
By BJ
Well, Italy’s Prime Minister certainly knows how to step in it.
Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi gave an enthusiastic, if unconventional, welcome on Thursday to the election of Barack Obama, citing among his attributes youth, good looks and a "suntan."
Speaking at a joint news conference with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in Moscow, the 72-year-old media tycoon also said Obama's election to the White House had been "hailed by world public opinion as the arrival of a messiah."
Little surprise many American conservatives really like Berlusconi. I’d say he was being particularly insulting, but as the article notes, he rather makes a habit of inappropriate remarks regarding other world leaders, which again makes his popularity among the Republican party of Bush not too surprising. (Okay, technically, his popularity is because they see a kindred spirit ideologically, such as his tough line on illegal immigrants. We’ll avoid mentioning what his policy of sending troops onto the streets says about the American right.)
In any case, reading about how Berlusconi joked about seducing the Finnish President and figured the Danish Prime Minister was handsome enough to pass his wife off to; I can’t help but feel sorry for Sarah Palin. After all, had the Montreal comedy duo who punked her impersonated Berlusconi instead of Sarkozy, she could be forgiven for not catching on to the hoax when the imposter mentioned how good his wife was in bed and how much he enjoyed the Hustler “documentary” porno, Nailin’ Palin.
Obama Should Include Russia On Missile Defense
By Cernig
Last week, one of George W. Bush's signature policy initiatives - that of missile defense sites in eastern Europe - took a massive hit as the Czech government, which has already signed a deal to host a radar site as part of the ABM initiative, bowed to opposition pressure and said it would hold off on final ratification of the deal until Obama took office in January.
Initially, the Czechs were planning to ratify the missile shield agreements without waiting for the US presidential election results.
For months Topolanek's centre-right government has defended the agreements reached with the Bush administration, but the Czech premier's political position has weakened at home after his liberal ODS party suffered defeats in recent regional and senatorial elections.
Lawmakers and Czech public opinion have been divided over placing the missile defence system in the former communist central European country, and angering Russia.
... The Czech left-wing opposition, which is against the radar installation, called the plans just part "of the erroneous policies of the Bush administration," said Jiri Paroubek, head of the Social Democrats who wants a six-month moratorium on the ratification process.
The Czech government narrowly won a "no confidence" vote on the 27th of October brought about by heated debate over Bush's plans. Only one vote saved them from having to call a general election. Some estimates put Czech public opposition to the deal at over 70%. In Poland, too, the majority of the populace are opposed to Bush's ABM plans, but the Polish premier has pushed through those plans anyway in return for massive military aid from the US.
Neocon backers of ABM are setting up for a big push in January, no doubt in an attempt to infuence Obama who has been vocally sceptical about the $450 billion program. His election platform position was that:
An Obama-Biden administration will support missile defense, but ensure that it is developed in a way that is pragmatic and cost-effective; and, most importantly, does not divert resources from other national security priorities until we are positive the technology will protect the American public.
Right now, the technology is neither cost effective nor pragmatic, and certainly won't protect the American public from non-exiostant Iranian nukes or from all-to-real Russian ones. But, as Peter Kilfoyle points out in the Guardian (h/t Kat), ABM is destabilizing:
It sets Russian against Pole and Czech. It has created a world where Putin and his generals can point to an encircling American military. Ever since the US revoked the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2001, Russia has looked nervously at American expansion. Missile defence, they fear, is ultimately aimed at them, and their strategic defence capability.
The Americans point the finger at "rogue states" – nowadays, a euphemism for Iran. However, when North Korea was the prime concern, the US engaged in an ultimately successful dialogue with them on their weapons programme. If Russia and the European Union had their way, talking with Tehran would remain the way forward.
Russia has actually called America's bluff on missile defence, offering co-operation against rogue states, and the use of radar facilities within Russia. The Americans turned them down.
What's Russia to think? Especially when neocon missile defense plans explicitly include space-based weaponry sooner rather than later and when the obvious focus of neocon planning is Russia, not Iran or any "rogue state". Obama would do well to shake off the hawkish liberal foreign policy establishment, who as old Cold War warriors are reflexively Russia-hating. He should either re-open negotiations with the Russians to expand missile defense planning to include them and European nations as full partners, or nix the whole thing.
The Tests to Come
By BJ
I’ve been watching the reaction to Obama’s election from around the world. As might be expected after eight years of Bush’s cowboy diplomacy, the reaction is mostly highly positive, and while the domestic right wing won’t be allowing him any honeymoon, (at least when the pro- and anti-Palin camps remember to stop sniping at each other), he will to some extent have a much easier go of it with America’s traditional allies and those that don’t hold any particular enmity.
For those who have reason to oppose the US, on the other hand, this transition period between the Bush and Obama presidencies presents numerous opportunities to push the envelope. Cernig noted yesterday Russia’s announcement to possibly deploy missiles near the Baltics and Poland in response to the Bush administration’s ABM deployment. While he’s right that this is a mess almost entirely of Bush’s making, it is also clear that this will prove to be one the first major tests of an Obama administration.
Assuming the Bush administration doesn’t muck things up more in an attempt to lock in certain options as they did over Syria recently, Obama will still face considerable pressure at home not to take the reasonable route of scrapping the ABM boondoogle and improving relations with Russia. Cries of “appeaser!” will be shouted from the highest rooftops by probably more than just the right. For that matter, Poland and the Baltic states may feel abandoned should the US pull out of the agreements they have with them. It’s also hard to say what reaction places like Iran and China will have to any move he makes.
Frankly, Obama’s reaction during the Georgia crisis, while not as knee-jerkingly belligerent as McCain’s, was hardly something I was impressed with. The anti-Russian tact of the foreign policy crowd in the US seemed to infect Obama as much as everyone else.
So will he choose reasonable compromise or unreasonable confrontation? If he’s smart and can get away with it, he’ll do as Kennedy did and go with reasonable compromise while selling it as unreasonable confrontation, but that’s a lot harder to get away with in these days of new media.
Whatever he does, it will tell us a great deal about how much change his administration will actually bring.
Gordon Smith Concedes
By Ron Beasley
Oregon Republican Senator Gordon Smith has conceded to Democrat Jeff Merkley.
Republican Gordon Smith, who has represented Oregon in the U.S. Senate for the last 12 years, this morning called Jeff Merkley, his Democratic challenger, to concede their race.
Jon Isaacs, an aide to Merkley, said that Smith called Merkley about 8:40 a.m. to concede the hard-fought race, which came down to a few thousand votes. Isaacs described the conversation between the two men as "very cordial."
It would appear that Merkley will receive 48% of the votes to Smith's 46% with Constitution Party candidate Brownlow receiving 5%, most of which was taken from Smith. Brownlow said that Smith was not conservative enough and that he ran to make sure Smith would lose.
Bush Agrees to "No Buts" Iraq Timetable
By Cernig
According to reports, the Bush administration has agreed to three out of five Iraqi amendments to the proposed new deal governing the US occupation there. The timetable for withdrawal by the end of 2011 will now be set in stone, with clauses allowing Baghdad and Washington to seek an extension for retaining troops in the cities beyond 2009 and in the country beyond 2011 dropped entirely. There's no definite information on which two proposals the US didn't agree to, but one seems likely to be the Iraqi wish for clarification of what "on duty" means when governing whether US soldiers committing crimes would be covered by US or Iraqi law.
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman says that Washington considers the negotiation process over and that it's for Iraqis now to decide whether they will accept the deal as is. The US embassy issued a statement saying "We've gotten back to them with a final text. Through this step we have completed the process on the U.S. side." The spokesman for Iraqi PM Noor al Maliki, however, has said that the US response "now requires meetings with the Americans to reach a common understanding."
Bush administration officials and the Pentagon had already tied to say that negotiations were closed before considering this latest set of amendments. My guess, given that the current wording would probably not pass the Iraqi parliament, is that the talking isn't over this time either. There's not a lot of time left until the UN mandate expires, though Iraq has said it will seek an extension to that mandate if needed.
Amazing though, huh? For so long the Bush administration has said they'd never agree to a fixed timetable, that any deal had to be "conditions based". And now they've agreed to a fixed timetable. Change you can believe in.
Transition changes
By Fester:
Most of the people around me look like they have recovered from their hangover and caught up on their sleep since Tuesday night. And now we wait as we enter a political twilight zone where normal electoral incentives for restrained behavior can not operate. So we see the silly season of Bush still being in charge despite him being a non-entity and Obama's campaign attempting to convert itself into a governing formation. Most other nations can handle a transfer of power in a week or two as the outgoing president or premier tells the incoming executive where he leaves the extra key and that the back stairs creak at night.
I would like to propose two constitutional amendments that would go into effect four years after they are ratified. This would allow for fairness as the rules would not change in the middle of a campaign or the middle of an administration. I am writing this in plain language, so please have the lawyers chime in:
The inauguration of the President shall occur on December 15th. The new term of Congresses shall begin on Dec. 10. All electoral votes shall be counted and certified by Dec. 12.
The intent here is to reduce the silly season time of the lame duck session. Details can be figured out later. The next amendment is aimed at restoring political counter-balance to the lame duck pardon power.
Any presidential pardons that are issued between two days before the general election and the next inauguration shall be subject to the disapproval of a majority of the Senate. Inaction by the Senate shall be taken as indication of approval.
This amendment should be a strong disincentive for Casper Weinberger and Mark Rich type pardons. It places no other restrictions on Presidential pardon power which is subject to the effective public constraint of political pressure.
Oregon Senate Final
By Ron Beasley
As I noted below Democrat Jeff Merkley has defeated Republican incumbent Gordon Smith in the Oregon Senate Race. Smith had led until early this afternoon until the votes from the populous and largely Democratic counties in the North West corner of the state. While Oregon is thought of as a blue state most of it is rural and ruby red but most of the people live in the few blue counties.
November 05, 2008
Nader needs to go away
By BJ
I am far too tired trying to recover from staying up far too late last night and then getting up early for work to get too angry, but what the hell was Ralph Nader thinking?
It's a pretty sad end to a career and man that was once worthy of respect
870 Strategy
By Fester:
2010 should be interesting at the Congressional level as there are two large groups that will push for an 870 strategy. And this should be a good thing for accountability, responsiveness and anti-douchebaggery efforts:
From the Next Right:
I am beginning to think that looking at House and Senate races and doing descending sorts on Bush 2004 percentages has become a seriously crippling way of targeting House seats. The President won 250 or so House districts in 2004. But building a majority solely by picking seats off this target list becomes seriously problematic. To win 218 races from this grouping, you'd need to win 87% of races. To win 200, leaving a handful to come from blue districts, you'd need to win 80%.
These need-to-win percentages are simply too high. First, you have personally popular Democrat incumbents in many of these seats. And second, any district that was within 10 points of the national median at the Presidential level is (at best) only a lean to one party or another for Congress.
We need to expand the map.
We need to get to a place where we only need to win 60% or two thirds of our "winnable" races. And that requires expanding the definition of a winnable race.
This is not a fifty state strategy. It is a 435 district strategy.
Reverse a couple of adjectives, change a few prepositions and this is the same exact argument made in the winter of 2005 for a Democratic 435 Strategy of challenging everywhere. Most of the challenges in R+6 districts will fail, but this basic strategy has picked off a few surprise seats. More importantly, it has reinvigorated the Democratic brand, gotten people used to seeing Democrats asking for their votes again, and provides a deeper and more experienced bench.
National elections with large (50 to 100) numbers of credible challengers on both sides of the partisan divide should produce some very interesting races in 2010 and 2012 as well as discouraging easily discoverable douchebaggery. It will be a strategy that knocks out some Democrats in 2010 as they'll be caught by surprise, but it chips away at the concrete of entrenched interests.
Oregon Senate Race Update
By Ron Beasley
Oregon's Senate race between incumbent Republican Gordon Smith and Democrat Jeff Merkley is still too close to call. Smith leads by just under 2000 votes at 3:00PM PST with 74% of the vote counted. Most of the remaining ballots are from heavily Democratic Multnomah County(Portland) so Merkley is still expected to win.
Update - 3:30 PM PST
Merkley has just taken the lead. Looking good!
Update - 4:50 PM PST
Merkley now up buy 2500 votes with 76% of the votes counted.
Update - 6:40 PM PST
Jeff Merkley declared winner over Smith;
PORTLAND, Ore. -- The Oregonian and KGW projected Wednesday night that Democratic challenger Jeff Merkley would overtake Republican Sen. Gordon Smith to win the Senate seat in the toughest, most expensive race the state has ever seen.
Multnomah and Lane County were still counting ballots Wednesday night, after numbers started to show a lead for Merkley in Multnomah, Oreogn's most populous and liberal county.
I will update as I learn more.
Bush Administration's Failed Tactics Kill More Innocents
By Cernig
Simply horrifying:
The NYT reports:
An airstrike by United States-led forces killed 40 civilians and wounded 28 others at a wedding party in Kandahar Province in southern Afghanistan, Afghan officials said Wednesday. The casualties included women and children, the officials said.
The United States military and Afghan authorities were investigating the reports about the latest attack, the American military said in a statement, but it gave no confirmation of the strikes or any death toll.
Well, at least this time the footage of yet another care-less atrocity surfaced before the US military could do its kabuki of denial, investigation, denial again, admission and finally reluctant apology.
But this new disaster, both for Afghanistan and for the West's "hearts and minds" efforts there, underlines why Obama needs to get his act straight on Afghanistan and Pakistan fast and to change the Bush course there as quickly as possible. There are some seriously worrying parts to his policy for the region as he stated it during the campaign - suggesting he would send even greater forces across the border into Pakistan, for example - which would mean an even more hawkish stance than the Bush one in the region. On the other hand, he also offered a policy option - concentrating on civilian aid, education and negotiations - that would ratchet down tensions in the region and perhaps offer a path for more moderate Taliban to renounce violence and come in out of the cold. That latter is the only way to end the US war in the region with anything even approaching a "success" for US interests.
Update: Connor O'Steen, recently returned from Afghanistan, writes in an email:
Wedding parties are an easy target to mistake because there's a large congregation of people, and in rural areas especially there's a predilection to fire guns into the air in celebration. In addition to this the parties are sex segregated, so a drone camera would probably just see a large group of armed men firing guns in Kandahar. 'What else could it be?' they say, "2+2=Taliban."
But this leads to another question, which people are feeding the US Army intelligence about these targets, and why are we still listening to them? From an airstrike near Herat earlier this year, the Army concluded that they had been fed faulty intelligence by local contacts who were using the airstrikes as a solution to familial and tribal enmities. It wouldn't surprise me terribly if we were doing the same thing in the south.
This must in the end result in an arbitrary redistribution of power: the khans that we tap and payroll for 'intelligence' have us destroy their rivals, and their local power increases at the expense of the government in Kabul. Much like the Sunni 'Awakening,' I don't see these connections as being in the long term interests of American security.
He adds that Taliban local commanders aren't in short supply and can be replaced easily by the militants, but that " the kind of communal emnity you cause through collateral damage can't be repaired."
The audacity of hope
By Libby
It was quite a night, wasn't it? I laughed. I cried. I'm still tearing up at intervals as I look at the photos and the full impact of this historic moment hits me. I feel about as stunned as I did on this day in 04, only this time it's in a good way. I want to stand on my deck and shout, "Thank you America for repudiating the lies and the hatemongering of the extremists who hijacked our country for so many years."
I want to go out and hug every single person who fought so hard to make this moment happen. Every campaign worker who toiled beyond human endurance to get out the largest vote in a hundred years. Every person who talked to their friends and families and neighbors and sold them on the idea that hope still exists and can overcome hate. Every blogger that risked carpal tunnel in a relentless assault of pixels on the intertubes, pushing back against the false narratives that threatened to turn this election into an American Idol contest.
Of course, the election of President Barack Hussien Obama is not the end of this fight, it's just the beginning. It's clear that he understands that too. I was struck by the tone of his acceptance speech. There was little jublilation over victory in his sober rhetoric as he hoisted the weight of his new responsiblities onto his slender shoulders. One can see the heaviness of that burden already manifesting in the increasing lines in his face and the new gray in his temples.
There's much work left to be done in bringing the millions of citizens who are even now stockpiling weapons against what they apparently truly believe will be the coming of some kind of Marxist-Socialist-Communist-Muslim-Gay-terrorist coup, back into reality, (assuming that can ever be done) and the dire problems that plagued us two days ago didn't disappear with President Obama's election. The world as we knew it before Bush won't ever return again. But I don't want to deal with that today. For this one day, I just want to savor the moment.
The whole world changed last night and although the challenges ahead are great, I believe we finally took a step in a better direction. For the first time in eight long years, I woke up without that crushing weight of concern bearing down on my chest about the future of my child and my grandchild. For this one day I just want to breathe that in. I want to wallow in the audacity of hope, and relish my rekindled pride in my President and our country. It's been a long time since I've felt it. [photo credit]
(Cross-posted at The Impolitic.)
GOP - In Search Of A Moderate Leader?
By Cernig
Commenting on a David Frum article that says the only path to Republican recovery is away from Sarah Palin and her base supporters, Charles at LGF agrees and writes:
If the GOP decides to go in the Bobby Jindal direction (fundamental Christianity, creationism, hard-line anti-abortionism, aggressively anti-gay rights), it will be committing political suicide. As much as anything else, this election was a referendum on the social conservative agenda, and the social conservatives did not win.
That's very true - but what Charles doesn't mention is that it was also a referendum on the hardline neoconservative agenda, and that agenda very definitely didn't win either. Ramesh Ponnuru at the Corner:
McCain slipped by roughly the same amounts among self-described conservatives and moderates. But the losses among the moderates hurt more because there are more of them.
Neither the hard right theocons nor the hard right neocons have the GOP's answer, but both are going to be advancing their argument that they do, forcibly, for some time still. I'm forcibly reminded of what happened within the British conservative movement after the collapse of Thatcherism. Until the extreemists conclusively defeated and the GOP moves back towards the center, it will remain in the political wilderness. So, where's the US Republican Party's David Cameron?
Update: Could it be Jeff Flake? Ed Morrissey seems to think so, while arguing that the real Republican failure isn't the theocons or the neocons, but the bigspendercons. Flake's Wikipedia entry lists his positions on some hot-button issues.
Flake supports creating a temporary worker program for border security, leading some anti-illegal immigration conservative activists to give Flake the Republican In Name Only label.[6] However, others consider him one of the most consistently conservative members of the House and strongly support him. He is one of eight House members to receive a 100% approval rating from the American Conservative Union.[6]
Flake voted against No Child Left Behind, Sarbanes-Oxley, Medicare Part D, Homeland Security Act[3], and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. He joined John McCain and Jim Kolbe in sponsoring bills to increase legal immigration and establish a guest worker program.
Flake initially supported the Patriot Act and the Iraq War, but more recently has changed his position to one of cautious opposition, including voting against appropriations for both. He also supports ending the Cuba Trade Embargo and has been a proponent of reform in the House, particularly in the wake of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's ethical and fundraising controversies. He co-authored a letter with now former Congressman Charlie Bass of New Hampshire, which called for DeLay to step down ahead of his decision not to seek re-election to the House.[citation needed]
Flake is strongly pro-life, with a rating of zero from NARAL; he has likewise received a zero rating from the Human Rights Campaign for his failure to support legislation that expands the 1969 federal hate-crime law or allows for same-sex marriage.
But oh, that name. The joke-writers would love it.
More on voter turnout
by Jay McDonough
Following up on anderson's earlier post
There had been lots of talk about this election's voter turnout potential; record voter registrations, long lines at early voting stations televised daily, huge number of requests for absentee ballots. How big was the turnout?
Politico reported today it was recordbreaking.
More than 130 million people turned out to vote Tuesday, the most ever to vote in a presidential election.
With
ballots still being counted in some precincts into Wednesday morning,
an estimated 64 percent of the electorate turned out, making 2008 the
highest percentage turnout in generations.
In 2004, 122.3
million voted in what was then the highest recorded turnout in the
contest between President Bush and Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.).
Turnout in the 2004 Bush/Kerry election was 56%. The previous turnout record was 63% in the 1960 Kennedy/Nixon race.
Before we get too busy patting ourselves on the back, some perspective may be in line. A 2001 report placed the United States at 120th in a ranking of turnout as a percentage of registrants.
There are a number of proposals floating around to increase voter turnout. They include making registration easier, EDR (election,or same day registration), and moving election days from Tuesdays to Saturdays and Sundays.
With Bush Still In Charge, The Right Will Blame Obama
By Cernig
Russian President Dimitri Medvedev chose today of all days to announce that Russia might deploy conventionally-armed short ranged missiles in the Baltic region if the US goes ahead with the Bush administration's planned ABM installations in Eastern Europe. Even though the Bush administration (still in power until January) and its neocon Wormtongues own the ABM boondoggle lock, stock and barrel and are clearly aiming it at Russia - and even though such military shifts are always planned months in advance - somehow today the Right are painting Russia's move as Obama's fault.
Medvedev, you see, mysteriously didn't congratulate Obama on his win in a speech which was scheduled weeks ago as the Russian leader's first "state of the union" address to his nation. Though why he should in such a speech is a mystery even the NY Times, which used the same ridiculous formulation, doesn't explain. The implication is that Medvedev is deliberately testing Obama to see if he has a spine. The truth is that Medvedev is rightly pissed with the Bush administration and Republican rule and Obama (perhaps because during the debates he repeated that dumb conservative talking point that Russia started the conflict in Georgia) is simply getting caught in the fallout.
Of the proposed deployments, Medvedev said:
“These are forced measures,” Mr. Medvedev said. “We have told our partners more than once that we want positive cooperation, we want to act together to combat common threats, that we want to act together. But they, unfortunately, don’t want to listen to us.”
That's all about the Bush/Cheney bluster and stonewalling - not Obama. He continued in the same vein:
Referring to the fighting in Georgia, he said: “The conflict in the Caucasus was used as a pretext for sending NATO warships to the Black Sea and then for the forceful foisting on Europe of America’s anti-missile system, which in its turn will entail retaliatory measures by Russia.”
The fighting in Georgia was “among other things, the result of the arrogant course of the U.S. administration which hates criticism and prefers unilateral decisions,” Medvedev said, according to news reports.
Which is, simply, true. Saakashvili wouldn't have sent his troops into South Ossetia to conduct atrocities if he didn't think Bush's America and NATO had his backs, and he thought that because Bush kept ignoring NATO allies who told him he was out on a limb about Georgia and his neocon pal McCain was whispering in his ear.
Somehow, all this translates into Russia testing the "Moonbat Messiah" instead of what it should be seen as - a situation where the US desperately needs to shake of the failed Republican method and try some old-fashioned diplomacy and sense for a change.
No honeymoon for Obama.
Record Turnout
by anderson
Ed Morrissey should really stop making statements like this before all the votes have been counted, even if his motivation is simply to play down the Obama victory.
...this election saw 3.24 million fewer votes than four years ago. Far from being more energized, the nation appeared to be more apathetic.As they say, appearances can be deceiving.
Now Morrissey looks entirely foolish in light of this news:
More than 130 million people turned out to vote Tuesday, the most ever to vote in a presidential election.With ballots still being counted in some precincts into Wednesday morning, an estimated 64 percent of the electorate turned out, making 2008 the highest percentage turnout in generations.
In 2004, 122.3 million voted in what was then the highest recorded turnout in the contest between President Bush and Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.).
Pondering an Obama Cabinet
by anderson
Speculation about the composition of Obama's cabinet appears to be the order of the day in a few circles. None of it is confirmed, of course, but this would be great news:
President-elect Barack Obama is strongly considering Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to head the Environmental Protection Agency, a Cabinet post, Democratic officials told Politico.After eight years of industry hacks wrecking havoc on environmental law, what a breath of fresh air this would be. Literally.
Wasilla hillbillies loot Neiman Marcus
By Ron Beasley
Apparently Sarah Palin really porked out when told to buy a few suits:
NEWSWEEK has also learned that Palin's shopping spree at high-end department stores was more extensive than previously reported. While publicly supporting Palin, McCain's top advisers privately fumed at what they regarded as her outrageous profligacy. One senior aide said that Nicolle Wallace had told Palin to buy three suits for the convention and hire a stylist. But instead, the vice presidential nominee began buying for herself and her family—clothes and accessories from top stores such as Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus. According to two knowledgeable sources, a vast majority of the clothes were bought by a wealthy donor, who was shocked when he got the bill. Palin also used low-level staffers to buy some of the clothes on their credit cards. The McCain campaign found out last week when the aides sought reimbursement. One aide estimated that she spent "tens of thousands" more than the reported $150,000, and that $20,000 to $40,000 went to buy clothes for her husband. Some articles of clothing have apparently been lost. An angry aide characterized the shopping spree as "Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast," and said the truth will eventually come out when the Republican Party audits its books.
Those Alaskans really do like their pork and the "bridge to nowhere" actually leads to Neiman Marcus.
Pittsburgh and Philly
By Fester:
I was just checking the Pennsylvania Secretary of State website for county by county breakdowns of the vote and something surprised me. Philadelphia and Pittsburgh proportionally underperformed for Obama compared to John Kerry's coalition to win Pennsylvania in 2004. Below is a simple chart of Pennsylvania's state wide performance in 2004 and 2008, as well as Philadelphia County and Allegheny County's performances.
As you can see in 2004, John Kerry ran up his margins in Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties while losing the rest of the state. This is a traditional Democratic strategy and GOTV system of flushing the base precincts and hoping that you don't get crushed in the "T."
Obama's coalition and map is significantly different. He actually lost votes in Allegheny County while minimally adding margin there. Fewer people voted in Allegheny County in 2008 than 2004. He gained margin and votes in Philadelphia but at a slower rate than he gained across the state. This is a significantly different map, and I need to think about what this means going forward.
The Morning After
By BJ
And the hangover begins.
Not the political one yet, just the one from staying up late last night celebrating. I’d be interested to see what kind of dive productivity numbers take for the day.
As to election results still trickling in that are surprising. It looks like convicted felon Ted Stevens will hold onto his Senate seat. And here Alaskans thought people’s view of their state couldn’t sink any lower. They’re now in a league with Louisiana, which keeps electing a guy found with bribe money in his freezer.
For Barack Obama, he is going to be glad of all of that “presumptuous” preparation he put into the transition team. As CNN points out, Obama will have little spare time to savor his victory, (and on a sober note, there is a funeral for him to attend in the very near future).
As for Obama’s speech, it was notable for its unifying theme, but then so was George Bush’s not so long ago. Obama’s mandate is far clearer than any Bush won, and I’m certain there are more than a few on the left who are eager to repay the right for the slights of the last eight years. While I have much more faith in Obama’s sincerity than I did in Bush’s, it remains for him to prove himself now, and the transition team and picks he makes in the next few weeks will begin to show us which way he intends to lead the country.
As for world reaction, the Moderate Voice has a good round-up here, and another great round-up post here.
And to cap things off, world markets are experiencing a surge.
Pennsylvania is 2010 Ground Zero
By Fester:
Wow, what a night --- now it is time to start thinking about 2010, and my initial thought is that Pennsylvania will be the scene of the biggest set of contested House elections as quite a few seats are vulnerable and could be vacating. Let's get started here on look at the moving parts.
Alyson Schwartz, D-PA-13 (Philly Burbs) is rumored to be one of the favored candidates to run against Republican Senator Arlen Specter. The Philly Burbs have been trending hard to the Democrats for most of this decade so this should be a lean/tilt Dem hold. However, I am assuming that the GOP or at least conservative activists will realize that the second easiest seat to win is an open seat (seats where there are mistress related scandals are the easiest it seems). So I am assuming a strong challenge.
Next we have PA-11 where Rep. Kajorski narrowly held on. He massively underperformed both his district's natural lean and Barack Obama's statewide margin. This should be a natural target seat for the Republicans in 2010 as it is a culturally conservative district.
I thought John Murtha in PA-12 would have been in trouble, but it looks like he won by a good fifteen to twenty points. I had slotted this race as a good GOP target at 5:00pm EST on Election Day but with these results, it is a longer shot race. I could see this being a suicide seat race as the southwest portion of the state has to give up a Congressional seat in 2011/2012 and this district could be demolished if Murtha indicates he wants to retire.
Next in PA-3 which is located up in northwestern Pennsylvania with Erie as its population anchor is a traditional swing district that now has a freshman Democrat holding it. Traditionally the first re-election campaign is the toughest one for a new incumbent.
Next the Democrats have one traditional first tier offensive significantly attempt to take PA-6 which is in the Philly burbs. Strong efforts were made in 2004 and 2006 but Rep. Jim Gerlach (R) did not face a first tier challenge in 2008. Jim Gerlach significantly overpeforms his districts Presidential, Senatorial and Gubanatorial leans. There are few swing urban/suburban swing districts left that are still held by Republicans. This is a natural but tough target. A third tier challenge in the 2006 and 2008 cycle has been PA-18 which is held by Republican Rep. Tim Murphy. This district is a slightly leaning Republican district with a conservative Democratic registration advantage. It is a plausible but expensive challenge district and it is also my white whale.
So with two years to go, Pennsylvania's target list is 6 House seats for one party or the other. Throw in the Governor's race and a top tier Senate race, and Pennsyvlania politcal junkies will be working constantly from next Friday (hangover recovery time) to November 15, 2010.
Late-Night Election Thoughts
By BJ
Well, it is all over but the lawsuits, though they’re unlikely to change anything. As I write this, Obama holds slim leads in both Indiana and North Carolina with 99% of the precincts reporting. That will push him to 364 Electoral Votes, assuming he loses Missouri and Montana. If he does carry Missouri, it takes him to 375. As the vote in the three west-coast states is being counted, Obama’s margin in the popular vote is also increasing, and should end up over 5%. All in all, a pretty damned good night.
McCain’s concession speech was good, (though I have to disagree with Fester in that I don’t think it out-shined Obama’s acceptance speech, but then few can match Obama on public speaking). McCain was the gracious and honorable “maverick” that only showed up once or twice during the campaign such as his convention speech. There have been a lot of pre-mortems and there will be a stream of post-mortems for his campaign, but in the end it is not wrong to point out that no other Republican would have made the race even this close.
On that note, I do fear what will become of the Republican Party now. While McCain was gracious in defeat, his supporters were far less so, and reading around the right-wing blogs, graciousness seems in very short supply.
I know that some are congratulating Obama on his win, such as our own John McCain. Yes, that’s fair, but if you listened to the concession speech the reasons this is such a “great moment” is because Obama is black, not because he was qualified, or even able to handle the Presidency. As I said before that makes this election even more pathetic. It was all about electing the first “Affirmative Action” candidate to office.
I can't wait to see the quality of discourse from the right over the next four years.
As for Obama, what can be said about his acceptance speech? In the words of one of the commentators at CBC, seems to be going for the title of poet-laureate as well as President of the United States. As with many of speeches, it was powerful, moving, inspiring, and included a call to action and for sacrifice that we haven’t heard for a long time from a politician. Whether or not people understand just what he means by that is still debatable, but I like what I hear. That said, I don’t envy him the task ahead.
And just for the hell of it, I’ll leave the final word tonight to my buddy salvage:
I can't believe y'all elected a secret Muslim Manchurian Marxist Fascists Liberal Black Panther Bastard spawn of Malcolm X ant-Semite terrorist radical man-dater who wasn't even born in America making him completely unconstitutional as your President.
Right now I wish I was the guy who owned the biggest paper and data shredding concern in the DC area. I would tell my guys that they'd be working straight through 'till the New Year.
Oh the wignuts, this is going to be a complete phase-shift, they will suddenly fall in hate with government "jackboots" all over again. It will be like the Clinton years only louder and oh so crazier.
Everything good that happens from now on will be because GW Bush was President, everything bad because Obama, yes we are going through the looking glass.
But that just means more things to laugh at.
1st Thoughts
By Fester
I'm tired, estactic, jet-lagged, amazed, and still processing. But Wow, we did this. I did GOTV planning for America Votes this year for our Pennsylvania efforts, and I am still amazed that it looks like we won the state by 10 points. I was thinking that we would be looking at a five or six point win in the state. I am shocked that Democrats held on in PA-11 and PA-12 so the Pennsylvania net margin was +1 House Seat for Democrats in PA-3. But Wow!
Here are some of my first thoughts:
- WOW!
- John McCain's concession speech was gracious and outperformed Obama's acceptance speech
- The South is solid for the GOP -- seems racial polarization was enough to tighten up North Carolina and Virginia as well as other southern states
- The spread probably looks like +5 or +6 for Obama once California finishes coming in
- Still can not find good information on the House of Representatives on a national level.
- Surprised that Pennsylvania got called so quickly, and Virginia took so long
- The horns are still honking outside the hotel.
November 04, 2008
Election Liveblog
7:18 CT by Cernig: Projections show Obama ahead in Florida 53/47% and well ahead in Ohio 65/34%
Obama is up 11% on Kerry's support with Hispanic voters.
Older voters up considerably, and voting McCian 55% of the time.
There are already two seats in the Senate which are being projected to change hands to the Dems.
7:27 CT by Cernig - ABC's Russell Goldman:
Obama's projected victory in Pennsylvania which has 21 electoral votes was a blow to McCain's White House hopes. While it was carried by Democrat John Kerry in 2004, McCain had hoped to turn it into a red state.
"We're going to win Pennsylvania tomorrow and I'm going to be the President of the United States," McCain said at a rally Monday. "Pennsylvania will do it, and Pittsburgh will be the important area."
7:35CT by BJ - I just note that Hagan has beaten Elizabeth Dole for a Dem Senate pick-up
8.01 CT by Cernig: ABC projects Minn. for Obama. Current EC projections - Obama 174/ McCain 61
8.04CT by Cernig Georgia projected for McCain. African Americans only 34% of the turnout but there'd been a massive GOP voter supression push in Georgia.
8.07CT New Mexico, New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina all look to be Dem Senate pick ups.
8:15CT by BJ - I was watching Fox at the top of the hour and they accidentally called Ohio for Obama, whichwould have ended McCain's hopes. They caught it right away, unfortunately, but I was real happy for about 10 seconds.
8:18CT by BJ - Ohio called for President-elect Obama!
8.20CT by Cernig. ABC hasn't called Ohio yet but they're showing 57% Obama/42% MCain. Axelrod is on ABC right now saying the Obama campiagn has out-preformed Bush '04 in all the swing states.
8.23 CT by Cernig. If McCain can only carry Alabama by 53% to 47%, I'm thinking he's got a problem.
8.24CT by Cernig Now we have ABC agreeing Ohio will fall for Obama. He's still ahead in Florida too.
8.36 CT Fox and ABC are calling New Mexico for Obama. EC projections: 200 Obama, 90 McCain. Given Ovbama will take CA, if he takes Florida too then McCain's toast.
But there's less than 300,000 votes separating the two, with 16 million plus in. Wanna bet the Republicans call foul?
8.40: Texas projected for Texas (Duh!) although San Antionio voted for Obama (Yay the Alamo City!). EC now projected as 200/124
8:40 by BJ - I’m very surprised with how close Virginia is. This appeared to be a lot firmer in Obama’s camp than Ohio was, but Ohio has been called and Virginia is on a razor’s edge, though it appears Obama may win a squeaker. You have to wonder what happened there.
8:55CT by BJ - I don’t know when the networks will call it officially, but take a look at the map and note that California, Washington, Oregon, and Hawaii are worth 77 electoral votes and all are safe for Obama. Add to what’s already called, and you can see the election is funtionally over.
9.03 CT by Cernig - Iowa projected to break for Obama, another Bush state turned over.
9.43 CT by Cernig. My friend Nicole at C&L tells me the Rocky Mountain News has called Colorado for Obama. That's bring Obama to 216.
9.53CT K-Lo at the Corner has run out of Kool-Aid, for now.
... this is an opportunity, too, an opportunity for our movement, the conservative movement, to reaccess, to return to its roots, to study and renew. And to whip the Republican party into shape. It's going to be tough. But the Right is up for it.
I'm so sorry we're here. But we appear to be. So we'll buck up, build up, and fight on.
9.58 CT Fox is calling Virginia for Obama too, according to MsJoanne in comments. James Joyner thinks Florida will break for Obama too. If so, McCain can put out the lights.
10.00 CT ABC formally projects Obama will be the 44th President of the United States. They report that AP and all the major news outlets are doing likewise.
I'm signing off for now although I think BJ and Jay are still around and may make some updates to this post. I'll be back if there's any major upsets. There's plenty more at memeorandum for political junkies though, including this story suggesting Republicans may be getting ready to allege electronic voting fraud in favor of the Democratic camp.
10:05CT by BJ – You know, I didn’t think it would matter when the networks finally called it for Obama. I mean, it was obvious once they called Ohio that he was going to win, but it still made me a bit giddy to actually hear them say it.
BARACK OBAMA ELECTED PRESIDENT!
I'm out
10:40CT By BJ – Well, I though I was gone. I switched over to CBC coverage and they’re looking at a huge crowd spontaneously gathering outside of the White House yelling for Bush to get out. Hard to tell if its just people celebrating or if it will turn into something uglier if people get carried away. Hopefully not the latter. I don’t want anything to tarnish this victory.
10:50CT by BJ - Seems the demonstration is of the good-natured variety, but very much caught the authorities off-guard. Looks like they're partying in Toronto as well. I bet we'll see a lot of happy people across the globe tomorrow.
12:23 EST --- By Fester --- Wow --- I am amazed, but my first thought is that the GOP closed harder than I thought they would have (fewer House losses than I thought). A couple of unexpected Democrats lost (Boyda in Kansas) but held on in both PA-11 and PA-12. The Senate massacre does not look like it will happen as the Dems look to max out at Plus 7 (NH, VA, NM, CO, OR, AK, and maybe MN).
Early Projections: PA For Obama
By Cernig
Almost 8pm on the East Coast and ABC are projecting Vermont for Obama, Kentucky and South Carolina for McCain. Projected voting seems to heavily favor McCain in Georgia. All those states being projected for McCain were on Jay's watch list earlier.
ABC are projecting Pennsylvania for Obama!!
Obama seems to be ahead in Florida, McCain in Virginia.
7:13 CT I've just been told NPR agrees with ABC on PA. According to ABC, Obama is taking roughly an equal share of the white vote while making an almost clean sweep of the black vote.
First Results are In
By BJ
And it looks like we're in for an upset!
Voting Machines Elect One Of Their Own As President
In seriousness however, a quick message for America from your friendly northern neighbours.
Update:
Since we're still in the nail-biting phase of tonight's early results, allow me to offer a couple of positive signs for all you Obama supporters out there.
First, McCain's support among white Evangelical voters, though still very high, is apparently six points lower than what Bush had.
Second, Obama is clearly outperforming Kerry in the rural Indiana ridings, keeping things very close, and we still haven't heard from the cities and areas where Obama is expected to do well.
Finally, whoever the hell came up with the idea for the holograms on CNN should be shot. Or at least the news crews' for their over-enthusiastic explanations of it.
Malkin Fears Obama's A Black Panther
By Cernig
Let's get this straight - I abhor any and all voter supression and intimidation, no matter who is doing it. And I consider the New Black Panther Party to be no better a set of bigotted nutters using religion and race for their own purile purposes than are the white supremacists and Christian Dominionists they oppose.
But Michelle Malkin has headlined a post about Black Panthers turning up outside a Philly polling place "Obama’s civilian security force: Billy club-wielding security guards at Philly polls" - when she has absolutely no evidence that these people have anything endorsement from Obama, in any shape or form.
If you believe that Malkin has just revealed her own racism thereby, backhandedly exposing in her own words her irrational fear of all blacks...well, you're not alone.
Update: And it looks like the whole story was hyped up in the first place by the Mccain campaign, Fox News and rightwing bloggers. Figures.
Update 2: Oh look - another made up story from the far right, this one about the supression of Republican vote-watchers in Philly.
For Any Value Of XY
By Cernig
My friend Charlie Stross hammers in the nail on Prop 8:
Speaking as a man who happens to be married to a woman, I'm mystified as to how banning someone else from marrying can in any way protect my marriage; but this kind of Orwellian misuse of language is typical of witch hunters. When challenged, supporters of the act often bring up irrelevancies: "marriage is for the purpose of having children," they say, conveniently side-stepping the question of why they aren't in favour of mandatory divorce for childless or elderly couples, or why they oppose allowing gay couples to adopt. Or, "marriage is a holy sacrament," which kind of assumes that everybody shares their definition of "holy".
A quick search for organizations supporting this proposition throws up the usual suspects: the Roman Catholic Church, American Family Association, Focus on the Family — basically the usual sleazy mess of hard-line Christian groups — with the Church of Latter-Day Saints and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America along for the ecumenical pogrom.
Here's a good diagnostic test for whether a proposed law is bigoted: if it applies to a group of people, replace the subject group in question with "Jews" or "Blacks", and see how it reads. If Adolf Hitler or the Grand Cyclops would approve, then it's a fair bet that there's something fishy about it. In the case of Proposition 8, how would you vote if it read, "Only marriage between Christians is recognized in California"? Or "Only marriage between white-skinned people is recognized in California"?
If you are a Californian voter and you vote for Proposition 8, then I'm afraid it means you're a bigot. You favour depriving a subset of the population of their civil rights, you are willing to vote for a measure that will destroy existing marriages, and you will refuse to honour marriage contracts acknowledged elsewhere in the world. And you've tacitly admitted that your own marriage does need protecting (which is kind of pathetic).
Yup.
Voting stories
By Libby
This first one is from yesterday but I'm including it anyway. Hecate passes on a beautiful story and photo from an Obama rally in Raleigh, NC.
Hecate also pulls a Tarot card. It's a very good omen. Might be NSFW if you work in very straight-laced place. It's just a picture of a card with a naked female angel, but use caution.
Pete Abel in Missouri saw lots of young people excited about voting.
1000 students lined up at Penn State.
Turn out stories from many different locations.
Moved to tears
By Libby
Although I weep at the end of It's a Wonderful Life every year, I'm not really one to cry over every little thing. I've been surprised how often a story about this race has made me so teary-eyed. Today's tear jerkers: First a voting story from Glen.
And I have a wonderful image from my small precinct to share. A young African-American mother can to vote with her three young daughters — we have those partially-enclosed plastic "booths." When she went to mark her vote, she told the girls "come, touch my hand, be a part of this — it's something you're going to remember the rest of your life."
Obama's first statement about his grandmother's death.
I'm just crushed that she didn't live one more day to see him to the end of his long journey. One bright spot in this dark moment is that yes, her vote will count.
Yes. We. Can.
By Libby
Election day at last. I'm so jazzed today that I almost can't focus enough to blog so I'm just going to cross posting election day stories from my place. People in my internet circles are reporting long lines and no lines. Everyone is a good mood. You can feel the hope. It's so palpable, you could eat it for breakfast.
Dixville Notch, NH, traditionally the first to report results has it for Obama in a landslide, 15-6.
Obama closes out his campaign with 90,000 at a rally in Manassas, Virginia last night. This morning in Richmond, all their voting machines broke down. Some confusion at first, but they now have paper ballots. Good. Harder to steal the vote that way.
Sean is on the road and takes a look at the Obama ground game in Georgia. I'm too superstitous to make predictions but that state could surprise us.
Over in Right Blogstantinople and Wingnut Punditryville, heads are already exploding. Take your pick of comical coverage here. Breathless posts on McCain's optimism, horrified indignation over imagined voting fraud or dire warnings about our country lurching to the left.
Meanwhile, I don't know how much blogging I'll be doing today. I'm not much for hour by hour analysis, but I expect to be sharing voting stories as they come in. In the interim, visualize victory.
[Photo credit] (Cross-posted at The Impolitic.)
Joe the Strummer
by Eric Martin
I must confess that I have an unfair advantage over many of my fellow citizens come election day in that my designated polling place happens to be in the lobby of my apartment building. No distance to travel, no consulting a map, no mixups: just roll out of bed and pull the lever in my boxers.
Despite my cushy voting existence, today, things didn't exactly go as planned. I ended up spending an hour on a line that stretched a full city block just to get back into my lobby. The line was easily more than twice as long as 2004 - and this is New York City! Where our votes count little! And yet, there was this interminable line of people exuding a palpable excitement, if a bit dampened with a touch of groginess.
On an unrelated note, my mind kept inserting various Clash tracks into my cerebral disc player while I was waiting to vote, and I haven't been able to get the buggers out all day. Then I got to thinking that Joe Strummer would probably be smiling broadly at today's events - it's his kind of election. And that's when it dawned on me: Joe Strummer has chosen me as his vessel to communicate to the people from beyond the grave on this most joyous of days. Joe in his own words:
Is McCain's Optimism Credible?
By Cernig
Even the most optimistic of McCain backers seems to be admitting that the Dems are going to pick up substantial gains in the House and Senate today - which seems, at least in my poor brain, to be a bit of a mental contortion on their part.
I know that the McCain campaign, in desperation, called on people to vote for McCain/Palin as a balance to Democratic majorities on the Hill (and that the RNCC in response immediately called on voters to send Republicans to the Hill to counterbalance an Obama White House) but how realistic is that really?
McCain and Palin have, during their campaign, pandered to the very worst of their GOP base in the most obsequious, hate-raising and maverick-denying way possible. I just don't see it as likely that anyone who can vote for the McCain/Palin ticket as it campaigned could possibly decide to vote Dem for Senate or House. Likewise, if someone's already decided to voting Republican in a House or Senate choice, I don't see any way they will then decide to vote for Obama/Biden for the White House. It just doesn't pass the smell test, for me.
Which leaves the McCain/Palin "last minute victory" afficionados with an explanation problem - if the GOP are going to take a drubbing, I believe they're going to get it cross-ticket. And they are going to take a drubbing. Has anyone seen them try to square that with their claims, or is the credibility gap just handwaved? From what I've seen and read, it's the latter.
So, it seems to me, the "Last Minute Maverick" stuff is either 1) delusional, 2) simple cynical propaganda to try to stave off an utter collapse of the Republican vote, 3) an attempt to undermine Obama's presidency by giving conservatives excuses to consider it illegitimate, or 4) conservative bigwigs think they can swing stealing the election for McCain but doing the same down-ticket is too hard a task. My money, for now, is on option two. But it's still worth keeping an eye on Republican pre-emptive cries of foul as well as the far more widespread but less hyped stories that indicate the American electoral process, as a technical exercise, has very deep problems.
[ Find Your Polling Place | Voting Info For Your State | Know Your Voting Rights | Report Voting Problems ]
What to watch for tonight
by Jay McDonough
There will be clues along the way; hints how the evening will play out. Watch for the following:
6:00PM EST. Polls close in parts of Indiana and Kentucky. If Obama is up in Indiana, which hasn't voted for a Democrat for president since 1964, McCain is in big trouble. In Kentucky, Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is in a tight race. If he's doing well the opportunity for Senate Democrats to reach 60 is in jeopardy.
7:00PM EST. Polls close in Virginia, Georgia, and most of Florida and New Hampshire. Virginia is the one to watch. If Virginia goes Obama, it could signal a big Obama sweep. McCain really needs to win Georgia.
7:30PM EST. Polls close in Ohio and North Carolina. Ohio was critical to Bush 43 wins in 2000 and 2004. In North Carolina, Republican Sen. Elizabeth Dole is running for re-election (and conducting a really slimy campaign). Watch for how Dole is doing for a sense on Senate Democrats opportunities in the Senate.
8:00PM EST. Polls close in Pennsylvania, Missouri and western Florida. McCain has been investing big time in Pennsylvania, so a win there is crucial to his campaign. If McCain can't win Florida, some analysts say he should head to bed.
9:00PM EST. Polls close in Colorado, New Mexico, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin. If Obama hasn't won a big Bush state by this point, he will need to win Colorado if he has a shot at the presidency. The Senate race between Al Franken and Norm Coleman in Minnesota is tight and another key sign of success for Democrats in the Senate.
10:00PM EST. Polls close in Nevada, Iowa and Montana. Nevada and Montana are tight and Obama has spent a lot of time in both.
11:00PM EST. Polls close in California, Oregon and Washington. Polls suggest these should be easy wins for Obama. The Senate race in Oregon would be one to watch as moderate Republican Senator Gordon Smith runs for re-election.
Dumbest thing I've heard at 4:30 AM
By Fester:
Until this morning, there have been two things that have competed for the distinction of the dumbest things I have heard at 4:30 in the morning. Both occurred when I was seventeen:
"Let's give the dog some Jello shots"
AND
"Let's go for a run"
I'm two time zones west of Pittsburgh right now so my sleep schedule is off. So I woke up at 4:00 AM local, and turned on the television as my body was convinced it was time to get up for work. I had CNBC on and they were talking politics. The question came up would the projected gains for Democrats in the House and whether it would lead to a more liberal or a more conservative House Caucus. The respectable pundit declared that it would lead to a more conservative House because 'most of the seats Democrats would inherit (his word, not mine) would be Republican seats..." This may be the dumbest thing I have ever heard at 4:30 in the morning. Of course, any seat a Democrat wins will have been a Republican seat. There are no Greens, no NDP, no Constitutional Party, no independent House Reps. So what is the analytical point here? It could be argued that the current median House member will be displaced as the new median House member will be an even more conservative Democrat, but there are not that many Democrats who are more conservative than the median Representative already. Further more, there is ideological coherence to both caucuses as the most liberal Republican is more conservative than the most conservative Democrat, so replacing a median Republican with a conservative Democrat is a significant shift to the aggregate left. A larger House majority allows for different coalitions of the 'willing' so that median voter theorem is significantly weakened due to agenda control and option space restrictions. If there are more Democrats in the House, it will of course be a (slightly) more liberal place unless one projects that all of a sudden we see the bifurcated Democratic Party of 1962 but Johnson, Wallace and Nixon made sure that coalition is no longer viable.
The Big Day is Finally Here
By BJ
Via the Swing State Project, a handy guide for when the results will start to come in. Well, except for the first two towns to vote, which both went for Obama.
Speaking of maps, the one over at 270towin should prove a useful toy for the evening. Regardless whether or not the networks decide to call things early on or not, such a map will make it pretty obvious which way the night is going to go.
Now we just get to sit around and worry for a few hours.
2004 VS 2008
By Ron Beasley
For those of us who are still nervous it is good to remember just how close the race was in 2004 as compared to this election. Below is the map from Electoral-Vote.com on this day in 2004.
>
As you can see it was very close with Iowa and Ohio tied. Bush took both of those states and that was the election.
Not even close.
November 03, 2008
What and Why
By Ron Beasley
I spent the afternoon looking at the polls and playing with an interactive electoral map and came up with what I though would be the likely result tomorrow. Before I had a chance to post I discovered I had reached the same conclusion as none other than Karl Rove, Obama - 338, McCain - 200. Not quite a blowout but close. (note: I see that Larry Sabato is sticking to his 364 -174 prediction). That's the what, the why, (or whys) is more complex. There are a number of reasons but most of them are related to number one on the list:
- George W. Bush: A Republican with an approval rating of 25%. This makes the R a toxic tag to begin with. I made it clear to anyone who would listen eight years ago that I thought the election of George W, Bush was a disaster. I didn't dream how right I would be - he exceeded my expectations.
- The Economy: I made it clear two and a half years ago that the so called Bush recovery was no recovery at all but a credit driven unsustainable boom. It was based entirely on consumer spending driven by cheap credit. I'm convinced that many in the Bush administration knew that the boom was going to go bust but had been trying to put it off until after the election. As we have seen they failed in that. After the major collapse in September McCain never had a prayer.
- The Republican Model: The Lee Attwater/Karl Rove model of using prejudice disguised as "Social Conservatism" simply doesn't work like it has for years. I'll discuss this in more detail below.
The Obama Imperative
By BJ
Gregory Djerejian has composed a monster post on Election Eve that I would recommend to any and all to read. I'll give you two extended quotes as teasers:
So tomorrow we Americans will have a choice. And while it seems too easy to say McCain represents continuity, and Obama an opportunity at a major course correction and even something of a shot at redemption, we must reluctantly conclude this is the core essence of the matter. I say reluctantly because John McCain, after all, has had a storied life, whether his service as fighter pilot, tenacity in captivity, long Senate career of some distinction, and more. And yet none of this matters finally, as he is nevertheless the standard-bearer of today’s Republican Party, alas. And today’s Republican Party is a disgrace, a dim shadow of its former self.
Indeed, the cautiously deliberative, fiscally conservative, great internationalist party one associates with names like Dwight D. Eisenhower is simply dead. Replacing it we have a cacophony of imbecilic voices like Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh (ask yourself—if you were a serious politician with a smidgen of intellect—would you even entertain questions from this veritable moronic inferno, or prefer to steer clear of such cheap carnivals?). Essentially, today’s Republican party is little more than a reincarnation of the Know-Nothing party (like the one of yore, this one too particularly outraged by immigrants, illegal ones only we are led to believe, of course…), a confused morass of vindictiveness crossed with fear crossed with abject ignorance (think Joe the Plumber, the supposed Country First Everyman who rants incoherently about how Barack Obama’s victory would mean the death of Israel, perhaps the greatest inanity I’ve overheard of all in the awful din of this painfully long election season, and this in a season rife with them).
And
Into this cauldron, and on the other side of the aisle, we have Mr. Obama. He is not perfect, he is no messiah delivered from the heavens, and it is true his resume is relatively thin (to which one might respond, who had bigger, more experienced resumes than Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld?). But let us be very clear: Mr. Obama has nonetheless been a tremendous gift to us, and we would be foolish in the extreme not to hope dearly for his victory. He himself is a consummate professional with undeniable potential for greatness. To have already achieved what he has been able to speaks volumes, getting to where he's gotten to alone, given all the road-blocks in his way. Yet he is humble too, and is evidently surrounding himself by very serious and knowledgeable people on the economy (think Paul Volker, Larry Summers, or Warren Buffett). On foreign policy while his posture on issues like Afghanistan and even Georgia have given me some concerns, his overall world-view and appetite to engage in robust diplomacy is light years better than the McCain approach.
Let us be plain: one man offers a continuation of the Bush Doctrine, in the main, the other, a repudiation of it. Mr. Obama's main stress on diplomacy as a neglected tool in our arsenal is of the highest importance, and lives in stark contrast to breezy 'bomb, bomb, bomb' Iran cretinism (as the saying goes, there is always a litle truth in every joke). And his election alone—in one major, fell swoop—would immediately go a long way towards helping restore much of America’s lost soft-power, by reminding the world that an African-American who was just a state senator a few years back, whose middle name is Hussein and last name rhymes with Osama, can, not only unseat the current premier Democratic dynasty (the Clinton’s, of course, who’d replaced the Kennedy’s), but then take on and likely prevail (fingers crossed!) over the hard-hitting, hyper-aggressive Republican Party, this only seven short years after the greatest terror attack ever inflicted on the American homeland.
There is a lot more where that came from, and it makes me once again wish that Mr. Djerejian would resume his blogging ways on a regular basis rather than just popping up every major international crisis or so.
I also would have preferred he put this up about a week ago so more people would have had the chance to read it before the vote, but I suppose late is better than never.
[ Find Your Polling Place | Voting Info For Your State | Know Your Voting Rights | Report Voting Problems ]
Manufacturing the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy
By BJ
Polls will start closing in less than 24 hours, and barring Supreme (Court) intervention, Barack Obama will be named the victor a few short hours later. But to follow up on Cernig’s post below, the right is most certainly not looking to take defeat lightly. Rather, they are already working towards a narrative as to how the election was “stolen” from them.
WHETHER or not Barack Obama wins election tomorrow, his campaign has exposed some gaping weaknesses in the electoral process
All too true, and Jay and Libby have listed many of the problems right here; voter suppression and purges, unverifiable electronic voting machines which just happen to switch votes only one way, all serious issues, but of course not the one's the right is interested in.
On the electoral side, we've seen allegations of massive voter fraud, often backed up by actual arrests and investigations. The FBI has opened an investigation into the Obama-friendly group ACORN, which has been associated with fraudulent registrations and other misconduct in many jurisdictions.
Yep. Be prepared to hear a whole lot more about ACORN from the right wing noise machine starting Wednesday night. Politico writer John Fund has went through the trouble to create a passably respectable argument of the ACORN allegations, and I have little doubt such stories are going to become far more common in the coming months and years
Of course, as has been pointed out before, there is no evidence that fraudulent registrations actually lead to fraudulent votes of any magnitude, but as we've seen all too often over the years, such things as "facts" and "evidence" are no deterence to the true beleivers.
So after eight years of telling Democrats to, "jus get over it", regarding Florida in 2000, the Republican base is preparing their own storyline of a stolen election to nurse their hatred on. In the meantime, the real problems with voting in America are staring people in the face will probably continue to be ignored.
[ Find Your Polling Place | Voting Info For Your State | Know Your Voting Rights | Report Voting Problems ]
$190 to vote
By Fester:
Ezra Klein is passing along the Rachel Maddow argument that long voting lines are not a healthy sign of a democracy, but instead a systemic poor-person voter suppression method:
voting lines are just another form of poll tax. They are a time tax. How much is four hours worth to the average voter? How many voters can take four hours off from their job, or their family, to stand at a precinct? We tend to frame long voting lines as an inspiring vision of democracy, but they're quite the opposite: They are disenfranchisement in action. A longer line does not simply mean more people are voting. It means more people are not voting, as they could not afford the time tax.
One of the standard and defensible methods of valuing individual time without massive census research is to look at regional average hourly earnings. The assumption is that average hourly earnings will roughly equal marginal earnings which roughly reflects the work versus other/better things to do with my time trade-offs. In 2007, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the average hourly earning in the United States was slightly more than nineteen dollars per hour.
A ten hour wait in line should be roughly calculated as costing an individual $190 in foregone earnings or leisure opportunity cost. That is a significant implicit cost that is not fairly or equally borne.
Sunni Awakening forces get a pay cut
by Jay McDonough
When the U.S. traded responsiblity with the Iraqi government to pay Sunni Awakening forces to stay on our side, there was plenty of concern the Shia government might drop the ball and the gains against al Qaeda in Anbar province would be lost. The Chicago Tribune reported yesterday the Iraq government intends to cut the salaries of the nearly 100,000 Awakening movement forces that have been instrumental in reducing violence in Iraq.
The
U.S. military, which calls the movement the Sons of Iraq, had been
paying members $300 a month to carry guns and protect their
neighborhoods against Al Qaeda.
Starting this month, Awakening
members will be paid 300,000 Iraqi dinars, or about $250 a month,
according to government spokesman Tahseen al-Sheikhly. Awakening
leaders, who had been earning $400 to $600, will also receive the lower
salary.
Shuja Naje Shaker, an Awakening leader in the Guardians of Ghazaliyah, one of western Baghdad's former hot spots, warned that Awakening members won't be happy.
"They will all quit," predicted Mohammed al-Girtani, an Awakening leader in the southern Baghdad neighborhood of Dora who had not been told about the lower salary. "And if the Awakening quits, there will be problems in the neighborhoods because there will be no one to protect them."
The Maliki government had offered Awakening forces jobs in Iraqi security forces, but to date have promised jobs to only 20% of the 100,000 Awakening members. Creating additional friction is the Sunni's impression the Maliki government is preferentially providing work opportunities to Shia constituents.
One doesn't have to dig very deep to recognize Iraq is simmering and ready to boil over at any moment. We don't hear it from our politicians though. Both parties are working overtime to convince voters that things are going swimmingly in Iraq. Republican politicians do it hoping to convince voters the U.S. effort has succeeded and "victory" is at hand. Democratic politicians, on the other hand, sell the "everything is good" in Iraq narrative to push for a U.S. withdrawal without the troublesome guilt. Both are blowing smoke.
Exports to Cliff Dive?
By Fester:
Last quarter's initial GDP fell as personal expenditures collapsed as consumers are out of money and out of credit. And that collapse happened before the credit markets had a coronary. So we can expect the 4th quarter PCE component of GDP to continue to fall. People are either broke or fear that they will be broke, and traditional monetary policy responses won't have a significant impact as we seem to be hanging at the edge of a liquidity trap.
Econbrowser points out that one of the strengths of the US economy over the past year has been the increase in exports and the decrease in imports. Improved balance of trade added a significant amount of support to the GDP this quarter.
Growth in exports and a fall in imports made a positive contribution, as did strong increases in government spending, which together kept the GDP total from being far more disappointing. But a weakening global economy and strained budgets for state governments make me doubt that we'll see as strong numbers for exports and government spending in the fourth quarter.
The US dollar has been weakening until very recently. The weaker US dollar makes US exports cheaper which means we should sell more after a bit of a lag, and imports more expensive (we saw this a lot with oil) which means we should buy less after a while. However the US dollar has bounced off its lows and is strengthening against most other currencies as the credit contraction is prompting a flight to safety and liquidity. So could we see a cliff-dive in exports as global growth reverses itself and macro-factors come into play?
Bloomberg reports that US manufacturers are reporting a horrendous month:
Manufacturing in the U.S. contracted in October at the fastest pace in 26 years as the credit crisis deepened and companies reduced orders.
The Institute for Supply Management's factory index dropped to 38.9, worse than anticipated by economists surveyed by Bloomberg News and the lowest level since September 1982, the Tempe, Arizona-based group reported today. A reading of 50 is the dividing line between expansion and contraction.
A good chunk of US exports are capital intensive manufactured goods. A contraction of US industrial production implies a significant decrease in foreign orders.
Mish at Global Economic Analysis caught this interesting piece of European news ---
Volvo's order book got destroyed to the tune of 99.63 percent, with customers signing up for just 155 vehicles in the three-month period, the Gothenburg, Sweden-based company said last week.
The Volvo division is their heavy truck division. If there is nothing to ship, there is no need to buy new heavy trucks. Shipping prices and demand have also collapsed as bulk commodities are not needed at the same rate that they were needed just six months ago. American coal, steel, corn, soybeans, and other bulk exports are not in demand as nothing is in demand right now.
So will we see exports cliff-dive over the next couple of quarters?
Destroying the GOP Brand
By Fester:
Just saw this over at Barry Ritholtz's new blog, which absolutely looks great:
And by way of full disclosure, I am probably best described as a Liberal Republican – low taxes, balanced budget, strong defense, no unnecessary overseas involvement, and no government involvement in personal matters (birth control, abortion, gay marriage, etc.) Liberal Republicans are now mythical creatures that no longer exist. I do not recognize the abomination that now calls itself the GOP. I guess that makes me an Independent.
Right now that description would put Barry's politics somewhere in the Wall Street/DLC axis of the Democratic Party with plenty of company although his social libertarianism puts him further to the DFH side of the party.
I'm betting that the coming Republican food fight will be initially won by the 'we were not conservative enough' factions and if that happens, plenty of people who still conceptualize of themselves as 'liberal'/Northeast Republicans will acclimate themselves to voting for Democrats who fit their politcy preferences with far fewer contortions.
Obama's Grandmother Has Died
By BJ
Sad news for the Obama family a day before what is likely to be a great triumph. Madelyn Dunham has died at the age of 86.
"She was the cornerstone of our family, and a woman of extraordinary accomplishment, strength, and humility," their statement said.
"She was the person who encouraged and allowed us to take chances. She was proud of her grandchildren and great-grandchildren and left this world with the knowledge that her impact on all of us was meaningful and enduring. Our debt to her is beyond measure."
This wasn't entirely unexpected, given Obama's decision to suspend his campaign for a few days to go see her a little over a week ago, but it adds a sobering dimension to tomorrow's events.
Rest in peace.
Chris Hitchens Defends Khalidi
By Cernig
Chris Hitchens appears to have sobered up enough to realize what nasty people he hitched himself to when he chose to join the warmongering Right over the invasion of Iraq.
A few feeble cracks on a comedy show are not enough to erase the memory of a vulgar and vicious attack, mounted on a rival candidate McCain has publicly called "honorable," only a few days earlier. It had been said that Sen. Barack Obama had once attended a dinner for professor Rashid Khalidi, a distinguished Palestinian academic. It was further said that the Los Angeles Times, which had first reported the five-years-ago dinner in Chicago, was deliberately withholding a videotape of the evening that would show Obama in the audience while tough criticism of Israel was being voiced. Here is how the Republican nominee for the presidency of the United States described the situation in a radio interview in Miami:
I'm not in the business of talking about media bias, but what if there was a tape with John McCain with a neo-Nazi outfit being held by some media outlet? I think the treatment of the issue would be slightly different.
... Khalidi has been known to me for some time and can easily be read and consulted by anyone with the remotest curiosity about the Israeli-Arab dispute. He is highly renowned, well beyond the borders of his own discipline, for his measure and care and scruple in weighing the issue. If he is seriously to be compared to a "neo-Nazi," then the Republican nominee has put the United States in the unbelievable position of slandering the most courageously "moderate" of the Palestinian Arabs as a brownshirt and a fascist. What then has been the point of every negotiation on a two-state solution since President George H.W. Bush convened the peace conference in Madrid in 1991? Nazis, after all, are to be crushed, not accommodated. One would have to think hard before coming up with a more crazy and irresponsible statement on any subject. Once again, it seems that McCain utterly lost his bearings.
I put the word moderate in quotation marks above because I dislike employing it in its usual form. Rashid Khalidi's family is a famous one in Jerusalem, long respected by Arab and Christian and Jew and Druze and Armenian, and holding a celebrated house and position in the city since approximately the time of the Crusades. I have had the honor of being invited to this very house. If Rashid chooses to state that he doesn't care to be evicted from his ancestral home in order to make way for some settler from Brooklyn who claims to have God on his side, I think he has a perfect right to say so. I would go further and say that if Barack Obama was looking for a Palestinian friend, he could not have chosen any better. But perhaps John McCain has decided that he doesn't need any Palestinian friends and neither do we. Perhaps he thinks it's all right to refer to refugees and victims of occupation, who have been promised self-determination and statehood at the podium of the United Nations and the U.S. Congress by George Bush and Condoleezza Rice, as if they were Hitlerites. How shameful. How disgusting. How ignorant.
They always were Chris, even when they were your BFFs. Now, of course, they hate you almost as much as they do Khalidi and Obama - and would hate you just as much if you had a deeper tan.
CIA officers could face torture trial in Britain
by Jay McDonough
British officials are considering bringing criminal charges against senior CIA officers for the abduction and torture of a British resident now incarcerated at Guantanamo. Some background:
In April 2002, Binyam Mohamed was arrested in Karachi, Pakistan after attempting to board a flight to London with a fake British passport. American authorities informed British counterparts Mohamed was plotting to build and detonate a "dirty bomb". Mohamed was held in Pakistan as British intelligence was dispatched to interview him there.
In the interview with the British intelligence Mohamed admitted being recruited by the Taliban to Afghanistan to learn about explosives and weapons and confessed he was to travel to Britain (where Mohamed had been residing) to produce false passports. Mohamed said the dirty bomb story was "an FBI perception". The British spy concluded Mohamed was lying and brought American agents into the interrogations. (Link)
Lawyers representing Mr. Mohamed have sued, on Mohamed's behalf, British intelligence forces for their part in his detention and purported torture. British judges overseeing the case and having received secret evidence, have become increasingly critical of U.S. conduct and are now considering charging American forces for their culpability in Mr. Mohamed's abuse.
Richard
Stein, of Leigh Day, representing Mr Mohamed in the High Court
proceedings, said: "Ultimately the British Government had little choice
once they conceded that a case had been made that Binyam Mohamed was
tortured. The Convention Against Torture imposes an obligation on
signatory states to investigate torture."
In August two judges ruled allegations of torture were at least
arguable and that MI5 had information relating to Mr Mohamed that was
"not only necessary but essential for his defence". (Link)
Mr. Mohamed claims he was sent to Morocco following his arrest in Pakistan and tortured by the CIA for eighteen months there. He was then rendered to the secret "Dark Prison" in Afghanistan, where he claims his torture continued. He has been held in Guantanamo Bay since September 2004. Mr. Mohamed has testified his torture by CIA representatives includedrepeated slashing of his penis with razor blades.
Where Are All The McCain People At?
By Cernig
Conservative enthusiasm for their nominated candidate seems to be a bit lackluster.
About 30 minutes before John McCain is scheduled to lead a rally outside Raymond James Stadium, looks like there's maybe 1,000 people here. What's up with that? On the day before the election? Bush drew at least 15,000 people to a rally just across the street on the Sunday before the 2004 election.
"We are the quiet majority that goes out and gets things done. ... I smell victory,'' said state Rep. Kevin Ambler. Good thing he smells it, because it's hard to see it with this crowd.
John McCain’s first rally of the day, in Tampa outside Raymond James Stadium, only drew about 1,100 people. Local reporters noting that at almost the same spot just before the 2004 election, President Bush drew about 15,000 people. Two weeks ago, Obama drew an estimated 8,000.
Republican Gov. Crist, who had previously agreed to do interviews with CNN and various local affiliates, bolted right after the rally with no explanation.
Hey John? No more caffeine for you!
Significantly, more conservatives will turn out for McCain's "pitbull" than for McCain himself. Equally significantly, even Mitt Romney refuses to say McCain ran a dignified campaign - and yet despite one of the sleaziest campaigns in the history of the World few bought into the McCain Mud Factory. That the conservative base is happier supporting even more of the Rovian same, only stupider, is the entire reason they are headed for the wilderness.
[ Find Your Polling Place | Voting Info For Your State | Know Your Voting Rights | Report Voting Problems ]
The most ridiculous thing Bill Kristol ever wrote
By Cernig
Bill Kristol, always wrong, today wrote:
Barack Obama will probably win the 2008 presidential election. If he does, we conservatives will greet the news with our usual resolute stoicism or cheerful fatalism.
Does even Kristol believe that? There's going to be a wailing and gnashing of teeth approaching biblical proportions. Internal civil war, recriminations and witch-hunts. Oh, and plenty of renewed calls for the rightwing coup the wingnuts have been pleading for since 2006, to save the poor, dumb American people from Teh Socialist, Muslim, Baby-Killing, Malcom-X-Kin Obamination.
[ Find Your Polling Place | Voting Info For Your State | Know Your Voting Rights | Report Voting Problems ]
Dirty Tricks Done Dirt Cheap
By Cernig
Take one cherry-picked quote, say that a newspaper has been "hid