Support NeoGAF

[PantherLotus]

Brilliant article by Brooks.

 

[PantherLotus]

TPMDC Morning Roundup
By Eric Kleefeld - May 29, 2009, 9:02AM

Bush: "The Information We Got Saved Lives"
Former President George W. Bush spoke last night in Michigan, defending the legality of his administration's interrogation methods. "I made the decision, within the law," Bush explained, "to get information so I can say to myself, 'I've done what it takes to do my duty to protect the American people.' I can tell you that the information we got saved lives." He later added that nothing he was saying was meant to criticize his successor: "I wish him all the best."

Obama's Day Ahead
President Obama will be meeting with Vice President Biden at 9:45 a.m. ET, in addition to his regular daily meetings with advisers. He will be speaking on securing the country's cyber-infrastructure, where he is expected to announce the appointment of a new "cyber czar," at 10:55 a.m. ET from the East Room. At 2:30 p.m. ET, he will attend a hurricane preparedness meeting at FEMA Headquarters.

No Biden Events Today
Vice President Biden will be attending President Obama's regular meetings with advisers today, and will meet with Obama at 9:45 a.m. ET. He will have private meetings for the remainder of the day, and does not have any scheduled public events.

Gates: North Korea Developments Not A Crisis, But "Very Provocative"
Sec. of Defense Robert Gates told reporters that the Obama Administration does not think there is a crisis, or a reason to build up troops, from the latest developments in North Korea. "What we do have, though, are two new developments that are very provocative, that are aggressive, accompanied by very aggressive rhetoric," said Gates. "And I think it brings home the reality of the challenge that North Korea poses to the region and to the international community."

NYT: Sotomayor's "Sharp Tongue" An Issue
The New York Times says that the latest round of criticism against Sonia Sotomayor comes from her sharp questioning of attorneys during cases, in particular an instance from a torture case. "To supporters, Judge Sotomayor's vigorous questioning of the Bush Administration's position in the case of the Canadian, Maher Arar, showcases some of her strengths ... But to detractors, Judge Sotomayor's sharp-tongued and occasionally combative manner -- some lawyers have described her as 'difficult' and 'nasty' -- raises questions about her judicial temperament and willingness to listen."

Hatch: Sotomayor Likely To Be Confirmed -- But Dems Shouldn't Rush It
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) told CNN that Sonia Sotomayor will likely be confirmed. "If there are no otherwise disqualifying matters here, it appears to me she will probably be confirmed," he said. But he did add this word of caution for the Democrats: "If the Democrats don't overplay their hand and don't try to rush this too much, the process will go well, they'll be better off, she'll get confirmed."

Sotomayor A Lucky Gambler
The New York Times also reports on Sonia Sotomayor that she hit it lucky at a casino back in late November 2008, winning $8,283, nearly six months to the day before President Obama tapped her for the Supreme Court. As the Times says: "Judge Sonia Sotomayor's lucky streak is apparently at least six months long."

Nader: McAuliffe Offered Me Money To Avoid Key States In 2004
Ralph Nader has now accused former DNC chairman Terry McAulliffe, who is now running in the June 9 Democratic primary for governor of Virginia, of having offered money to Nader's 2004 presidential campaign to stay off the ballot in key swing states. After years of seeing Ralph Nader intervene negatively in general elections, it's good to him now get involved constructively in a Democratic primary.​

 

[PantherLotus]

GOP Sen. Calls Rush And Newt 'Wrong,' 'Terrible' On Sotomayor

Cornyn: Gingrich And Limbaugh Statements On Sotomayor Are 'Inappropriate' And 'Wrong'
By Brian Beutler - May 29, 2009, 9:04AM

As if to magnify what are already major differences between elected Republicans and conservative activists on the question of Sonia Sotomayor, check out what conservative senator (and chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee and Judiciary Comittee member and former Texas State Supreme Court Justice) had to say.

"I think it's terrible. This is not the kind of tone that any of us want to set when it comes to performing our constitutional responsibilities of advice and consent."

Republican leaders may not have as much sway over their own interest groups as Democratic leaders do over their, so don't expect the attacks to stop. But it's a bold statement. He even lashed out at Newt Gingrich and the unassailable Rush Limbaugh.

"Neither one of these men are elected Republican officials [and] I just don't think it's appropriate and I certainly don't endorse it. I think it's wrong."

Of course, any time a Republican official says anything unflattering about Rush, it's worth asking a couple questions: Will he apologize for it? And how long will he wait?

Interestingly, on the question of Sotomayor's insistence that her background influences her thinking on the bench, host Melissa Block asked Cornyn if conservatives were holding the new nominee to a double standard. After all, at his confirmation hearings in 2005, Justice Samuel Alito said similar things about his own upbringing. Here's how Cornyn responded.

Well, that's a fair point, and I had not remembered that. I mean, we're all a product of our upbringing and who we are. And I think it is a fact that people do have different backgrounds, but I don't think those backgrounds ought to determine what the law is.​

We'll have more for you on Alito later today. In the meantime, remember this if you're in front of the squawk box later today and you're wondering what all the fuss it's about. It's about a lot of things--but not Sonia Sotomayor.​

 

[Sharp]

Of course he would say that, he held an elected position in Texas. He knows the GOP can't afford to lose any more of the Hispanic vote than it already has.

 

[PantherLotus]

Of course he would say that, he held an elected position in Texas. He knows the GOP can't afford to lose any more of the Hispanic vote than it already has.

It would be nice if he meant it, which I believe he does.

Edit: I tend to believe any Republican dumb enough to call out Rush Limbaugh. It's like being a sentinel and watching human batteries accidently wake up to the real reality just long enough to look at their surroundings before they are unceremoniously flushed.

 

[mckmas8808]

TPMDC Morning Roundup
By Eric Kleefeld - May 29, 2009, 9:02AM

NYT: Sotomayor's "Sharp Tongue" An Issue
The New York Times says that the latest round of criticism against Sonia Sotomayor comes from her sharp questioning of attorneys during cases, in particular an instance from a torture case. "To supporters, Judge Sotomayor's vigorous questioning of the Bush Administration's position in the case of the Canadian, Maher Arar, showcases some of her strengths ... But to detractors, Judge Sotomayor's sharp-tongued and occasionally combative manner -- some lawyers have described her as 'difficult' and 'nasty' -- raises questions about her judicial temperament and willingness to listen."
​

Latina has a nasty attitude and a bad temper. Yep sounds good coming from her detractors.

 

[besada]

It would be nice if he meant it, which I believe he does.

"Big John" Cornyn is a jackass. This is a great example that a stopped watch is still right twice a day.

 

[PantherLotus]

Here's that Bush article referenced above:

Bush: 'The information we got saved lives'
From CNN Political Producer Peter Hamby

BENTON HARBOR, Michigan (CNN) – Former President George W. Bush on Thursday repeated Dick Cheney's assertion that their enhanced interrogation program was legal and garnered valuable information that prevented future terrorist attacks.

In his largest domestic speech since leaving the White House in January, Bush told an audience in southwestern Michigan that after the September 11 attacks, "I vowed to take whatever steps that were necessary to protect you."

Although he did not specifically allude to the high-profile debate over President Obama's decision to halt the use harsh interrogation techniques, and without referencing Cheney by name, Bush spoke in broad strokes about how he proceeded after the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in March 2003.

"The first thing you do is ask, what's legal?" he said. "What do the lawyers say is possible? I made the decision, within the law, to get information so I can say to myself, 'I've done what it takes to do my duty to protect the American people.' I can tell you that the information we got saved lives."

But Bush avoided the sharp tone favored by his former vice president in recent weeks, and went out of his way to stress that he does not want to disparage the new president.

"Nothing I am saying is meant to criticize my successor," Bush said. "There are plenty of people who have weighed in. Trust me, having seen it firsthand. I didn't like it when a former president criticized me, so therefore I am not going to criticize my successor. I wish him all the best."

The former president was speaking to nearly 2,500 members the Economic Club of Southwestern Michigan. The format of the speech was changed at the last minute when Bush decided to answer questions directly from the audience members, instead of responding to pre-submitted questions provided to a moderator.


Bush repeated his disclaimer about not passing judgment Obama later in the speech when asked about North Korea's test of a nuclear weapon. Before answering, the 43rd president said that he is "in no way trying to shape my successor's decisions or criticize them."

"I know there are news people here, and they love conflict," he said.

On the topic of how to respond to North Korea, Bush said diplomacy is impossible without leverage.

"A lot of times people want to give out the carrots," he said. "My attitude is, you give out the carrots when the behavior changes."

After his opening remarks, Bush engaged in a nearly hour-long back-and-forth with audience members that touched on nearly all aspects of his presidency, from the September 11 attacks to his ban on embryonic stem cell research to his consultations with advisers as the economic crisis hit last year.

He strongly defended his Troubled Asset Relief Program as crucial to preventing capital markets from freezing up, which he said would have led to another Great Depression. He noted that he remains "a free market guy."

Bush was asked what he thinks about conservative pundits who claim the Obama administration's fiscal policies are opening the door to socialism.

"I've heard talk about that," he said. "I think the verdict is out. I think people are waiting to see what all this means."

The former president earned a noisy standing ovation when asked what he wants his legacy to be.

"Well, I hope it is this: The man showed up with a set of principles, and he was unwilling to compromise his soul for the sake of popularity," he said.

Bush also revealed the topic of the first chapter in his forthcoming book, which he said will be about "the stories of my administration as I saw them." That first chapter, he said, will be answer the question: "Why did I run for president?"

An aide to the former president did not disclose how much he was paid for the speaking appearance, which was booked through the Washington Speakers Bureau. After the event, Bush flew to Toronto, where he will appear tomorrow at a forum with his White House predecessor, Bill Clinton.​

 

[soul creator]

Obama's Day Ahead
President Obama will be meeting with Vice President Biden at 9:45 a.m. ET, in addition to his regular daily meetings with advisers. He will be speaking on securing the country's cyber-infrastructure, where he is expected to announce the appointment of a new "cyber czar," at 10:55 a.m. ET from the East Room. At 2:30 p.m. ET, he will attend a hurricane preparedness meeting at FEMA Headquarters.

WHERE'S MY FIOS OBAMA

 

[Father_Brain]

A National Review blogger actually asks a good question about "socialized medicine":

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGU4MmQzYjU2ZmQwODNjYjhhNGY0ZTExNTU3NzgxZDU=

I wrote a Wall Street Journal piece with Rep. Paul Ryan a few months ago, which in part warned about the dangers of socialized health care and mentions the British model. A friend of mine from the U.K. wrote back and said this:

To most British readers, your article's reference to Great Britain and the supposedly deleterious effects of the NHS [National Health Service] upon the wider economy, will be distinctly puzzling, as the creation of the NHS is widely seen as probably the greatest development in post war Britain, providing incalculable benefits for the wider economy and social cohesion. It is telling that all political parties in the UK are committed to the principle of health care that is universally available and free at the point of use. If Americans could be personally exposed to the NHS …, what a beneficial transformation could be wrought upon the American body politic.

My sense is what he says it true, at least to this extent: NHS is quite popular in Britain, to the point many people within the Conservative party understand it would be a disaster to run against it. If that’s correct, it raises this question: If socialized heath care is so bad, why do the people who live under it find it so popular? I’m no expert on this, but those who are — including conservative health-care experts — have told me the NHS is, in fact, popular.

I’d be interested in the thoughts of fellow Cornerites on three specific matters: first, an empirical question, which is how popular NHS is; second, is David Cameron or any other leading Conservative politician running to undo the NHS; and third, if nationalized health care is as bad as we conservatives say, why isn’t there a groundswell in nations that have nationalized health care to undo it?

I’d welcome, and benefit from, the insights of others.

I imagine that the only response will be some variant of the claim that Europeans are brainwashed from birth into dependence on the welfare state, but oh well.

 

[besada]

A National Review blogger actually asks a good question about "socialized medicine":

It's actually a pretty obvious question, that follows on the heels of "If socialized medicine is so bad, why is it that every industrialized nation other than the U.S. uses it" and "If socialized medicine is so bad, how are those countries with socialized medicine beating us at lifespan, infant mortality, and general health?"

The majority of the arguments against socialized medicine are either deeply ignorant, or ideologically motivated with no concern for the actual outcome (I'm looking at Jaydub here).

If you're looking for the best overall health outcome, there is no effective argument against a well-administered, sensibly planned socialized system.

 

[PantherLotus]

Is healthcare the topic of the day? I'm not nearly informed enough to give significant input. I might sit this one out and observe. I might not.

I do know that there has to be a balance between the good of the people and the good of the business, which are both important.

 

[dave is ok]

Is healthcare the topic of the day? I'm not nearly informed enough to give significant input. I might sit this one out and observe. I might not.

I do know that there has to be a balance between the good of the people and the good of the business, which are both important.

Right now there is a balance between the good of the insurance companies and the good of the insurance companies.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/28/justice-department-drops-charges-in-voter-intimidation-case/

http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/05/29/top_stories/doc4a1f42b32c161287079901.txt

Dept. Of Justice Drops New Black Panthers Case

Obama Administration Abandons Voter Intimidation Lawsuit
By MICHAEL P. TREMOGLIE, The Bulletin
Friday, May 29, 2009
Sources told The Bulletin that there is internal dissension in the Department of Justice (DOJ) about a voter intimidation case from last year’s presidential election. Obama appointees did not want to proceed with the case, while the career prosecutors did. The incident occurred in Philadelphia and involved the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense (NBPPSD).

The DOJ filed a lawsuit under the Voting Rights Act against the NBPPSD and three of its members alleging the defendants intimidated Philadelphia voters during the Nov. 4, 2008 general election. The action was filed in January before President George W. Bush left office.

The complaint, filed in the United States District Court in Philadelphia, alleged that on Election Day, Nov. 4, 2008 in Philadelphia, NBPPSD members Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson were stationed at the entrance to a polling location at 1221 Fairmount Avenue, wearing the uniform of the organization. It also states Mr. Shabazz repeatedly brandished a “police-style baton weapon.”

The complaint said NBPPSD Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz confirmed that the placement of Messrs. Shabazz and Jackson was part of a nationwide effort to deploy NBPPSD members at polling locations on Election Day. The Justice Department sought an injunction to prevent any similar future actions by NBPPSD members at polling locations.

“Intimidation outside of a polling place is contrary to the democratic process,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Grace Chung Becker at the time. “The Department takes allegations of voter intimidation seriously.”

None of the defendants responded to the lawsuit. Instead of immediately filing for a default judgment as is the normal procedure, sources told The Bulletin the DOJ asked for and received an order from the court providing an extension of time to file. Specifically, they asked the court to give them until May 15.

But on May 15, DOJ changed its mind again. Rather than a default judgment, the DOJ filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit for two of the defendants. This included Mr. Jackson, who identified himself to police as a member of the Democratic Committee in the 14th Ward. He also produced credentials to that effect.

DOJ only asked for a default judgment against one defendant, Samir Shabazz, which was granted on May 18. But sources say the proposed order for the default judgment asks for none of the usual conditions the Justice Department would want, such as keeping Mr. Shabazz away from any polling locations for a set number of years into the future.

Hans von Spakovsky is a former career Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. He thinks the inaction by the Justice Department is unprecedented. He told The Bulletin that the dismissal by Justice, with no notice on the Justice Department press site, particularly against an organization listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, is a horrible miscarriage of justice. He said DOJ has failed in its duty to enforce voting laws. He is outraged by the action.

“It is absolutely unprecedented for the Justice Department to dismiss a lawsuit after the defendants failed to answer the suit and are thus in default," he said.

Mr. von Spakovsky said that the NBPPSD's lack of response was the legal equivalent of an admission of all theallegations made about the defendants’ organized effort to threaten and intimidate voters.

"And dismissing an individual who was a local Democratic party official who defaulted by not answering the complaint smacks of the worst sort of political partisanship," he said. "It is completely contrary to all of the promises that Eric Holder made when he was confirmed to be Attorney General.”

Vito F. Canuso, chairman of the Philadelphia Republican City Committee, said that what the Justice Department did is tantamount to filing a lawsuit for $100,000. Then when they win the suit for $100,000 they ask for $10,000.

Neither the Justice Department nor the Republican National Committee responded to requests for comment.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/29/career-lawyers-overruled-on-voting-case/

"The civil suit filed Jan. 7 identified the three men as members of the Panthers and said they wore military-style uniforms, black berets, combat boots, battle-dress pants, black jackets with military-style insignias and were armed with "a dangerous weapon"and used racial slurs and insults to scare would-be voters and those there to assist them at the Philadelphia polling location on Nov. 4. "

"The complaint said the three men engaged in "coercion, threats and intimidation, ... racial threats and insults, ... menacing and intimidating gestures, ... and movements directed at individuals who were present to vote." It said that unless prohibited by court sanctions, they would "continued to violate ... the Voting Rights Act by continuing to direct intimidation, threats and coercion at voters and potential voters, by again deploying uniformed and armed members at the entrance to polling locations in future elections, both in Philadelphia and throughout the country."

To support its evidence, the government had secured an affidavit from Bartle Bull, a longtime civil rights activist and former aide to Sen. Robert F. Kennedy's 1968 presidential campaign. Mr. Bull said in a sworn statement dated April 7 that he was serving in November as a credentialed poll watcher in Philadelphia when he saw the three uniformed Panthers confront and intimidate voters with a nightstick.

"In my opinion, the men created an intimidating presence at the entrance to a poll," he declared. "In all my experience in politics, in civil rights litigation and in my efforts in the 1960s to secure the right to vote in Mississippi ... I have never encountered or heard of another instance in the United States where armed and uniformed men blocked the entrance to a polling location."

 

[Particle Physicist]

hey man. its his right to carry a weapon wherever he wants! ... right?

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

hey man. its his right to carry a weapon wherever he wants! ... right?

Yes but not to block people from voting using racial epithets and threats of violence. Unless of course you believe that when it was the reverse and when white folks were doing it to blacks it was ok.

 

[PantherLotus]

Yes but not to block people from voting using racial epithets and threats of violence. Unless of course you believe that when it was the reverse and when white folks were doing it to blacks it was ok.

BOLD ITALIC UNDERLINE
BOLD ITALIC UNDERLINE
BOLD ITALIC UNDERLINE
BOLD ITALIC UNDERLINE

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

BOLD ITALIC UNDERLINE
BOLD ITALIC UNDERLINE
BOLD ITALIC UNDERLINE
BOLD ITALIC UNDERLINE

Dude get off my back. I already pointed out the key info on the article.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Yes but not to block people from voting using racial epithets and threats of violence. Unless of course you believe that when it was the reverse and when white folks were doing it to blacks it was ok.

BUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT!!

 

[scorcho]

While not condoning the Shabazz's actions, I'd just like to point out that every statement from Hans von Spakovsky about voter's rights and voting fraud should be followed by minutes of canned laughter. The guy is a joke.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

BUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT!!

Dude shut up. No one is bringing up the 2nd amendment here except here. Try harder next time to be a hypocrite.

 

[PantherLotus]

Dude get off my back. I already pointed out the key info on the article.

I was pointing out that it's impossible to read your horribly formatted articles and that your attempt at "pointing out" key info has only obscured your intended message.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Dude shut up. No one is bringing up the 2nd amendment here except here. Try harder next time to be a hypocrite.

hypocrite? how am i being a hypocrite.. i was being facetious ..


the article states that they were standing there.. in an intimidating fashion.. brandishing weapons..

if all they were doing was just standing there.. well, shouldnt the staunch defenders of the second amendment be defending these guys rights?

just curious what their take on this situation is.


and by the way... my comment wasn't necessarily directed to you..



EDIT:

i see you have posted other articles with more information.. if it had played out the way the first article made it seem.. im still curious to hear the thoughts of those i mentioned...

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

I was pointing out that it's impossible to read your horribly formatted articles and that your attempt at "pointing out" key info has only obscured your intended message.

Thats nice. People here ask to have me highlight the key info and I did. If you want to read the article in its original form go to the link.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

hypocrite? how am i being a hypocrite.. i was being facetious ..


the article states that they were standing there.. in an intimidating fashion.. brandishing weapons..

if all they were doing was just standing there.. well, shouldnt the staunch defenders of the second amendment be defending these guys rights?

just curious what their take on this situation is.

Howabout you read the rest of the article and the other article I posted. Considering an aide to Robert Kennedy said it was the only instance he has heard of armed and uniformed men blocking the entrance to a polling place, I consider that significant.

 

[PantherLotus]

Isn't that the case where FoxNews was attempting to scare the already paranoid afraid-of-black-people crowd? :lol :lol

Of course it was dismissed, it was never real.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Howabout you read the rest of the article and the other article I posted. Considering an aide to Robert Kennedy said it was the only instance he has heard of armed and uniformed men blocking the entrance to a polling place, I consider that significant.

how about you post the other articles after my post instead of editing them in, making my post seem out of whack.

 

[scorcho]

just curious what their take on this situation is.

I think regardless of their second amendment rights that they stood there brandishing their weapons in a threatening manner seems in opposition to the text of the VRA. I don't buy the whole career vs. political divide on the case, but I'm interested in hearing the official Justice response on the case.

 

[PantherLotus]

Right now there is a balance between the good of the insurance companies and the good of the insurance companies.

I don't disagree in the slightest, but I do acknowledge the inherent interest (profit) companies might have in continuing research. That's all I meant.

Insurance companies are the devil.

 

[PantherLotus]

how about you post the other articles after my post instead of editing them in, making my post seem out of whack.

Please do not feed the geese. Or encourage them to post more nonsense.

 

[PantherLotus]

Sen. Levin Calls Cheney A Liar On Classified CIA Torture Docs

Levin Calls Cheney A Liar On Torture
By Eric Kleefeld - May 28, 2009, 6:39PM

Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) spoke last night at a dinner of the Foreign Policy Association, where he lambasted former Vice President Dick Cheney's speech last week for dishonestly claiming that the interrogation techniques he approved were not torture, and were not connected to Abu Ghraib -- saying that Cheney "bore false witness":

(video)

"I do so as Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, which recently completed an 18-month investigation into the abuse of detainees in U.S. custody, and produced a 200-page bipartisan report, which gives the lie to Mr. Cheney's claims," said Levin. "I do so because if the abusive interrogation techniques that he champions, the face of which were the pictures of abuse at Abu Ghraib, if they are once more seen as representative of America, our security will be severely set back."

Levin also went after Cheney for claiming that "enhanced interrogation" saved American lives, and that it was no different from what is done to our own people in SERE training:

(video)

Regarding Cheney's claim that classified documents will prove his case -- documents that Levin himself is also privy to -- Levin said: "But those classified documents say nothing about the numbers of lives saved, nor do the documents connect acquisition of valuable intelligence to the use of abusive techniques. I hope that the documents are declassified, so that people can judge for themselves what is fact, and what is fiction."​

 

[Macam]

The majority of the arguments against socialized medicine are either deeply ignorant, or ideologically motivated with no concern for the actual outcome (I'm looking at Jaydub here).

If you're looking for the best overall health outcome, there is no effective argument against a well-administered, sensibly planned socialized system.

Worth re-quoting since it's absolutely spot on.

"Big John" Cornyn is a jackass. This is a great example that a stopped watch is still right twice a day.

And I agree again. Cornyn is currently head of the Senate Republican Campaign Committee, and his views on immigration and Sotomayor's critics' claims of racism are largely derived from concerns of not wanting to lose the vast majority of the Hispanic vote. Short of that, he never fails to align himself with the far right of the party on just about any issue (and it's also worth noting that he voted against the Kennedy/Kyl immigration reform bill that Bush supported two years ago).

 

[mckmas8808]

Isn't that the case where FoxNews was attempting to scare the already paranoid afraid-of-black-people crowd? :lol :lol

Of course it was dismissed, it was never real.

Yes this is the same case.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Is healthcare the topic of the day? I'm not nearly informed enough to give significant input. I might sit this one out and observe. I might not.

I do know that there has to be a balance between the good of the people and the good of the business, which are both important.

Speaking of healthcare, the two best bits of news I've read recently are 1) Ben Nelson saying he would consider a public option, when he had previously said a public option was a "deal breaker", and 2) Ted Kennedy's draft healthcare bill having a strong public option as a core component; this is important because he chairs the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, one of the committees with oversight on the healthcare bill. That sets him up to spar with Max Baucus on the Finance Committee, who has been waffling about the need for one. Between the two, my money is on Kennedy, especially with so many other Dems on board the public option train.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Yes this is the same case.

Really? Never real? That is why an aide to Robert Kennedy confirmed it?

To support its evidence, the government had secured an affidavit from Bartle Bull, a longtime civil rights activist and former aide to Sen. Robert F. Kennedy's 1968 presidential campaign. Mr. Bull said in a sworn statement dated April 7 that he was serving in November as a credentialed poll watcher in Philadelphia when he saw the three uniformed Panthers confront and intimidate voters with a nightstick.

"In my opinion, the men created an intimidating presence at the entrance to a poll," he declared. "In all my experience in politics, in civil rights litigation and in my efforts in the 1960s to secure the right to vote in Mississippi ... I have never encountered or heard of another instance in the United States where armed and uniformed men blocked the entrance to a polling location."

Yea, I am sure he is part of the big Fox conspiracy to scare white folks of blacks. Shoot its even working on me! I am now scared of my wife and daughter...

 

[speculawyer]

Levin Calls Cheney A Liar On Torture
By Eric Kleefeld - May 28, 2009, 6:39PM

Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) spoke last night at a dinner of the Foreign Policy Association, where he lambasted former Vice President Dick Cheney's speech last week for dishonestly claiming that the interrogation techniques he approved were not torture, and were not connected to Abu Ghraib -- saying that Cheney "bore false witness":
​

VoteVets video on torture from an intelligence officer that supports this view.​

 

[speculawyer]

Cornyn: Gingrich And Limbaugh Statements On Sotomayor Are 'Inappropriate' And 'Wrong'

Pretty rare when I agree with Cornyn but I suspect it is only because he is from a heavily latino state.

"Big John" Cornyn is a jackass. This is a great example that a stopped watch is still right twice a day.

Indeed . . . but I don't think he is 'right' so much as politically maneuvering.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

He strongly defended his Troubled Asset Relief Program as crucial to preventing capital markets from freezing up, which he said would have led to another Great Depression. He noted that he remains "a free market guy."

It's funny how conservatives preach "let the free market decide!" yet when shit hits the fan, they bail out big businesses. Then again, Republicans have always been in line with big businesses.

Also, I REALLY want to see these other declassified memos that documents how torture prevented attacks.

 

[mckmas8808]

Really? Never real? That is why an aide to Robert Kennedy confirmed it?

To support its evidence, the government had secured an affidavit from Bartle Bull, a longtime civil rights activist and former aide to Sen. Robert F. Kennedy's 1968 presidential campaign. Mr. Bull said in a sworn statement dated April 7 that he was serving in November as a credentialed poll watcher in Philadelphia when he saw the three uniformed Panthers confront and intimidate voters with a nightstick.

"In my opinion, the men created an intimidating presence at the entrance to a poll," he declared. "In all my experience in politics, in civil rights litigation and in my efforts in the 1960s to secure the right to vote in Mississippi ... I have never encountered or heard of another instance in the United States where armed and uniformed men blocked the entrance to a polling location."

Yea, I am sure he is part of the big Fox conspiracy to scare white folks of blacks. Shoot its even working on me! I am now scared of my wife and daughter...

Some of the instances that they said happened, didn't happen. It was last year, so my memory is hazy on the facts. But I remember it was super hyped for about 2 days then died like a rock.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Some of the instances that they said happened, didn't happen. It was last year, so my memory is hazy on the facts. But I remember it was super hyped for about 2 days then died like a rock.

Perhaps Fox got some of the info wrong however the instance itself still did take place. I cannot comprehend the reason for the justice department basically letting these guys get off scott free.

 

[PantherLotus]

Sotomayor Spark Ignites Simmering GOP Divide

Sotomayor Spark Lights Intra-GOP Conflagration
By Eric Kleefeld - May 29, 2009, 12:15PM

After a week of escalating race and gender rhetoric from the right over the Sotomayor nomination, it's now looking like some in the Republican Party -- those concerned with actually getting elected -- have become alarmed by the political damage the more extreme members of their party may be doing and are moving to rein in the vitriol. It's the starkest example yet of an interesting division within the right, one that has been apparent for some time, but which the Sotomayor nomination has not only crystalized but accelerated: the right-wing bomb-throwers obsessed with ideological purity versus the right-wing pragmatists who want the party to actually win election again some day.

Make no mistake -- all of these people are staunch conservatives. While the bomb-throwers include folks like Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich and a colorful cast of other players, the practical folks include the likes of Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), RNC chairman Michael Steele, and pundit Peggy Noonan.

Where you stand depends on where you sit: If your job is to whip up publicity and/or money, then haranguing on Sotomayor is the way to go. But if your job is to not alienate key groups of voters and to work to bring them back, it's a different story entirely.

Let's compare and contrast.

In his initial reaction on Tuesday, Limbaugh called Sotomayor a "reverse-racist" and demanded that the GOP "go to the wall" against her. The next day, Gingrich said she is "Latina woman racist" who should withdraw. And yesterday, former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) made the interesting claim that she belongs to the "Latino KKK without the hoods or the nooses, a reference to her membership in the National Council of La Raza, a longstanding civil rights group. (Really, without the hoods and nooses, what do you have left?) And as we've documented, there is a cottage industry on the right dedicated to raising money to oppose her.

But let's take a look at the other side of the coin. In the last 24 hours or so, some big-name Republican voices -- including people who are actually responsible for the day-in and day-out tasks of rebuilding a broken party and getting back into government -- have stepped in to dial this stuff back. They clearly understand just how destructive this kind of rhetoric is.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), who represents a state with a large Hispanic population and is responsible for the Senate GOP's campaign in 2010, has denounced Gingrich and Limbaugh. Cornyn appeared yesterday on National Public Radio -- note the high-brow venue -- and said: "Neither one of these men are elected Republican officials [and] I just don't think it's appropriate and I certainly don't endorse it. I think it's wrong." A possibly key statistic here: Cornyn won re-election in 2008 with 36% of the Latino vote -- a very good number for a Republican, especially one whose Democratic opponent was a Hispanic state legislator and Iraq War veteran.

Michael Steele gushed this morning, "I'm excited that a Hispanic woman is in this position," and that the party should not be "slammin' and rammin'" Sotomayor, but construct arguments against her on purely substantive grounds.

Peggy Noonan was on Morning Joe today, and urged Republicans to above all else not make this about name-calling, and to instead make this a serious discussion about the difference between liberals and conservatives on judicial philosophy. "What I think should be happening here with Sotomayor," Noonan said, "is that the Republicans take it as an opportunity to be serious. Be calm; be judicious, don't be on the attack."

This new establishment push may have had an effect on the bomb-throwers, too. MSNBC correspondent Savannah Guthrie reported just this morning that Wendy Long, one of those big anti-Sotomayor organizers, sent her an e-mail. Guthrie said the message complained that "somehow this important debate is turning into an argument about race and identity politics, and they really want it to be about Sotomayor's record."

And at the end of the day, let's also remember that the "fight" of the Sotomayor is more theater than an actual high-stakes debate. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), the head Republican on the Judiciary Committee, admitted two days ago that he didn't see an actual filibuster in the works. And Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) yesterday told CNN essentially the same thing -- that Sotomayor will be confirmed barring some unforeseen disqualifying circumstance.

So if it's all about performance, the debate is really about what kind of performance the GOP should put on -- one to rally the base, or a more respectable show to attempt to win back previously lost voters.​

 

[PhoenixDark]

Really? Never real? That is why an aide to Robert Kennedy confirmed it?

To support its evidence, the government had secured an affidavit from Bartle Bull, a longtime civil rights activist and former aide to Sen. Robert F. Kennedy's 1968 presidential campaign. Mr. Bull said in a sworn statement dated April 7 that he was serving in November as a credentialed poll watcher in Philadelphia when he saw the three uniformed Panthers confront and intimidate voters with a nightstick.

"In my opinion, the men created an intimidating presence at the entrance to a poll," he declared. "In all my experience in politics, in civil rights litigation and in my efforts in the 1960s to secure the right to vote in Mississippi ... I have never encountered or heard of another instance in the United States where armed and uniformed men blocked the entrance to a polling location."

Yea, I am sure he is part of the big Fox conspiracy to scare white folks of blacks. Shoot its even working on me! I am now scared of my wife and daughter...

The video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFOKnJ0oXYY

If people want to defend that nonsense, fine. They were there to ensure black voters weren't refused the right to vote - and in the process they intimidated many other voters. Not worth the outrage, not worth outright dismissal either

 

[reilo]

Perhaps Fox got some of the info wrong however the instance itself still did take place. I cannot comprehend the reason for the justice department basically letting these guys get off scott free.

Question: How many white people have been prosecuted for intimidating voters in an overly minority district?

 

[PantherLotus]

Perhaps Fox got some of the info wrong however the instance itself still did take place. I cannot comprehend the reason for the justice department basically letting these guys get off scott free.

1. I don't deny what the video clearly shows. But those individuals aren't getting off "scott free" because that would intimate that they could be charged. They were clearly removed without incident. That doesn't mean they weren't doing something wrong, which it certainly looks goofy, but were they breaking the law?

The complaint said NBPPSD Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz confirmed that the placement of Messrs. Shabazz and Jackson was part of a nationwide effort to deploy NBPPSD members at polling locations on Election Day. The Justice Department sought an injunction to prevent any similar future actions by NBPPSD members at polling locations.

2. But the video clearly doesn't show this. There was no 'vast conspiracy' to intimidate voters using the freaking Black Panthers. The accusation itself, and FoxNews' approach to this, is intended to scare far more people than those two goofballs ever did.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Really? Never real? That is why an aide to Robert Kennedy confirmed it?

To support its evidence, the government had secured an affidavit from Bartle Bull, a longtime civil rights activist and former aide to Sen. Robert F. Kennedy's 1968 presidential campaign. Mr. Bull said in a sworn statement dated April 7 that he was serving in November as a credentialed poll watcher in Philadelphia when he saw the three uniformed Panthers confront and intimidate voters with a nightstick.

"In my opinion, the men created an intimidating presence at the entrance to a poll," he declared. "In all my experience in politics, in civil rights litigation and in my efforts in the 1960s to secure the right to vote in Mississippi ... I have never encountered or heard of another instance in the United States where armed and uniformed men blocked the entrance to a polling location."

Yea, I am sure he is part of the big Fox conspiracy to scare white folks of blacks. Shoot its even working on me! I am now scared of my wife and daughter...

i think the bullshit fox thing was their claim that this group was going to dispatch people across the nation to intimidate folks everywhere.... that never happened.

we just had this one instance (as far as i know)

 

[mckmas8808]

2. But the video clearly doesn't show this. There was no 'vast conspiracy' to intimidate voters using the freaking Black Panthers. The accusation itself, and FoxNews' approach to this, is intended to scare far more people than those two goofballs ever did.

Yep, basically.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Pieces are falling in place for GM's bankruptcy plan. Yesterday a big chunk of bondholders agreed to a debt for equity exchange plan. Today there's word that the UAW have voted to accept their concessions package. And now a parts supplier is close to buying Opal, one of the European divisions GM is trying to sell off.

The Chrysler bankruptcy is going far better than expected. And GM is going to be much harder and more complex. But so far there's been a trend of the right pieces falling into place in the final moments.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Question: How many white people have been prosecuted for intimidating voters in an overly minority district?

Nobody is denying that whites have intimidated blacks and have gotten away with it. However that doesn't excuse these individuals from doing the same thing.

 

[syllogism]

Sotomayor Spark Ignites Simmering GOP Divide

Michael Steele gushed this morning, "I'm excited that a Hispanic woman is in this position," and that the party should not be "slammin' and rammin'" Sotomayor, but construct arguments against her on purely substantive grounds.

highlighting this

 

[PantherLotus]

Nobody is denying that whites have intimidated blacks and have gotten away with it. However that doesn't excuse these individuals from doing the same thing.

Classic LosingSteam. Nobody is excusing their behavior, or they shouldn't be. But you were suggesting that they got away "scott free" and that there was a nationwide conspiracy to scare white people. That's just silly.