Archive for April, 2008

Major mess in Pennsylvania

Machine malfunctions, long lines, registration probs reported across Keystone State..

BRAD BLOG ALERT
April 22, 2008

Pennsylvania Primary: Polling Place, E-Voting Problem Wire…

Problem reports from polling places in PA, including voting machine malfunctions, long lines, registration problems and more having been coming in all across the state (particularly in and around Philly), all morning.

We’ve been doing our best to keep up, with a running wire of notable reports, which we continue to update throughout the day.

See our report yesterday detailing concerns about e-voting equipment (though not from officials, who weren’t concerned at all) and whether there would be enough machines to go around (presuming they work at all) across Pennsylvania…

For up to the minute news: ELECTION PROBLEM WIRE

If you missed it yesterday, we tried to warn you…
The Pennsylvania Primary: Democracy of the Gods
Tuesday’s Election Will be ‘Unrecountable, Unverifiable, and Unauditable’…
FULL STORY

Style Dash: Survive in Style, Not Denial

Style Dash:

Normally we find a product that we like and say a few words about who they are and what they do. Then we make a joke or some other quip that either cheers or jeers the company, their respective product and all of their hard work. It’s a living.

Full Story

José Can You See? Bush’s Trojan Taco

By Greg Palast

Psst! George Bush has a secret.

While you Democrats are pounding each other to a pulp in Pennsylvania, the President has snuck back down to New Orleans for a meeting of the NAFTA Three: the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of Mexico.

You’re not supposed to know that – for two reasons:

First, the summit planned for the N.O. two years back was meant to showcase the rebuilt Big Easy, a monument to can-do Bush-o-nomics. Well, it is a monument to Bush’s leadership: The city still looks like Dresden 1946, with over half the original residents living in toxic trailers or wandering lost and broke in America.

The second reason Bush has kept this major summit a virtual secret is its real agenda. More important, the agenda-makers, the guys who called the meeting, must remain as far out of camera range as possible: The North American Competitiveness Council.

Never heard of The Council? Well, maybe you’ve heard of the counselors: the chief executives of Wal-Mart, Chevron Oil, Lockheed-Martin and 27 other multinational masters of the corporate universe.

And why did the landlords of our continent order our presidents to a three-nation pajama party? Their term is “harmonization.”

Harmonization has nothing to do with singing in fifths like Simon and Garfunkel. Harmonization means making rules and regulations the same in all three countries. Or, more specifically, watering down rules – on health, safety, labor rights, oil drilling, polluting and so on - in other words, any regulations that get between The Council members and their profits.

Take for example, pesticides. Wal-Mart and agri-business don’t want to reduce the legal amount of poison allowed in what you eat. Solution: “harmonize” US and Canadian pesticide standards to Mexico’s.

Can they do that? Can Bush just say, “Eat your peas – even if they’re radioactive?” Under NAFTA, at least the way George Bush reads it (or has it read to him), he can. At any rate, he does.
Continue Reading »

Top US general ‘hoodwinked’ over aggressive interrogation

Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Addington, Haynes, Feith, Bybee, Yoo Behind Widespread Use of Torture

By Richard Norton-Taylor, The Guardian:

Update: Audio|Philippe Sands Interview

The US’s most senior general was “hoodwinked” by top Bush administration officials determined to push through aggressive interrogation techniques for terror suspects held at Guantánamo Bay, the Guardian can reveal.

The development led to the US military abandoning its age-old ban on the cruel and inhumane treatment of prisoners.

General Richard Myers, the chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff from 2001 to 2005, wrongly believed that inmates at Guantánamo and other prisons were protected by the Geneva conventions and from abuse tantamount to torture. (doh!)

The way he was duped by senior officials in Washington - who believed the Geneva conventions and other traditional safeguards were out of date - is disclosed in a devastating account of their role, extracts from which will be published in tomorrow’s Guardian.

In his new book, Torture Team, Philippe Sands QC, a professor of law at University College London, reveals:

    Senior figures in the Bush administration pushed through previously outlawed measures with the help of unqualified and inexperienced military officials at Guantánamo.

    Myers believes he was a victim of “intrigue” by top lawyers at the department of justice, the office of the vice president, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld’s defence department.

    Myers wrongly believed interrogation techniques had been taken from the army’s field manual.

The lawyers who pushed through the interrogation techniques - all of them political appointees - were Alberto Gonzales, David Addingon and William Haynes.

Others involved were Doug Feith, Rumsfeld’s undersecretary for policy, and Jay Bybee and John Yoo, two assistant attorney generals.

The revelations have already sparked a fierce response in the US from those familiar with the contents of the book.

They are determined to establish accountability for the way the Bush administration violated international and domestic law by sanctioning prisoner abuse and torture.

The Bush administration has tried to explain away the ill-treatment of detainees at Guantánamo and the Abu Ghraib prison, in Baghdad, by blaming junior officials.

Sands establishes that pressure for the aggressive and cruel treatment of detainees came from the very top and was sanctioned by the most senior lawyers.

Myers, the most senior military officer of the most powerful country in the world, was one top official who did not understand the implications of what was being done.

Sands, who spent three hours with the former general, describes him as being “confused” about the decisions that were taken.

Myers did not realise that fundamental safeguards provided by the Geneva conventions and elsewhere were being abandoned by his own junior officers as well as political appointees in the administration, the author says.

He believed new techniques recommended by Haynes and authorised for use by the military at Guantánamo by Rumsfeld in December 2002 had been taken from the US army field manual.

However, none of the severe interrogation techniques came from the manual, and all breached established US military guidelines and rules.
Continue Reading »

TPM Reader: Why Nash McCabe?

TPM, Josh Marshall

Remember that woman from the debate last night who the moderators showed videotape of asking whether Barack Obama “believes in the flag”? Her name is Nash McCabe.

I remember thinking it was sort of odd to have a couple one-off uses of ordinary voter question when it didn’t really seem like it was part of the format. But I was too distracted by the general inanity of the debate to focus on this issue too closely.

Well, it turns out TPM Reader JL did give some thought. And he came up with something very interesting (see JL’s post at the DrexelDems blog). He did a little googling and found out Nash is pretty popular with the traveling press now in Pennsylvania. It turns out McCabe was featured in an April 4th story in the Times which begins like this

Ask whom she might vote for in the coming presidential primary election and Nash McCabe, 52, seems almost relieved to be able to unpack the dossier she has been collecting in her head.It is not about whom she likes, but more a bill of particulars about why she cannot vote for Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.

“How can I vote for a president who won’t wear a flag pin?” Mrs. McCabe, a recently unemployed clerk typist, said in a booth at the Valley Dairy luncheonette in this quiet, small city in western Pennsylvania.

Mr. Obama has said patriotism is about ideas, not flag pins.

“I watch him on TV,” Mrs. McCabe said. “I keep looking for that lapel pin.”

Now, it does seem like McCabe is not a fan of Sen. Obama’s. And I think we can assume that it’s not a coincidence that McCabe managed to show up featured in the Times and also as the sole outside questioner in the ABC debate. Presumably, a researcher for ABC or Gibson saw the piece in the Times, figured, hey, this lady hates Obama and is seriously ginned up about the lapel issue. Let’s send a camera crew Obama and film her slamming Obama to his face. It’ll be great in the debate.

Now, as JL noted in his email to TPM, I’m not sure precisely what’s any less ethical about finding Nash at random to come on and slam Obama about whether he believes in the flag versus seeing her in the Times and saying, ‘Wow, this woman clearly has it in for Obama. Wouldn’t that make for great TV giving her a chance to crap on Obama’s head in front of a nationwide audience?

I think there’s something wrong with it. And part of it is that you usually assume that these citizen questions come from people who are at least partly conflicted about their support if not undecided. But it does reinforce my sense that the disgraceful nature of the debate wasn’t just something that came together wrong, some iffy ideas taken to far, but basically engineered to be crap from the ground up.

–Josh Marshall

ABC’s Debate Debacle: Action Alert

Trivia and biased questions dominate Democrats’ debate

ACTION:
Ask ABC why debate moderators George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson so often derailed the debate away from issues of concern to voters and, in a debate that was supposed to help Democratic voters choose their party’s candidate, framed so many questions from a right wing perspective.

CONTACT:
ABC News
Email: netaudr@abc.com
212-456-7777

The ABC sponsored Democratic debate in Philadelphia on April 16 emphasized trivial matters of little concern to voters, while the actual policy questions were often based on misleading right-wing spin.

During the first half of the debate, ABC moderators George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson avoided any mention of policy issues. As the Los Angeles Times noted (4/17/08), “With the moderators and Clinton raising assorted questions about Obama’s past for the first half of the debate, issues received relatively short shrift. Not until 50 minutes in was a policy issue– Iraq–asked about by the moderators.”

The trivial line of questioning touched on well-worn campaign non-issues: Clinton’s gaffe about Bosnia, Obama’s recent characterizations about “bitter” small-town voters, the rhetoric of his former pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and the fact that Obama rarely wears an American flag pin on his lapel. (This is not the first time ABC has seemed unusually interested in this distraction–see FAIR Media Advisory, 10/10/07.)

Perhaps the most irrelevant line of questioning came when Stephanopoulos asked about Obama’s contacts with University of Illinois at Chicago professor William Ayers, who was once a member of the radical Weather Underground group. Obama’s “ties” to Ayers have been an obsession of Fox News host Sean Hannity, who reportedly pressed Stephanopoulos to ask about Ayers at the debate (Salon.com, 4/17/08; MSNBC 4/16/08).

Framing the question as a “follow up” on “the general theme of patriotism,” Stephanopoulos challenged Obama to “explain to Democrats why it won’t be a problem,” given that Ayers had never apologized for the bombings the group carried out in the 1970s. “In fact,” said Stephanopoulos, “on 9/11 he was quoted in the New York Times saying, ‘I don’t regret setting bombs; I feel we didn’t do enough.’” (Actually, that quote appeared in the Times on September 11, 2001; it was not, as Stephanopoulos seemed to imply, made on the day of the attacks.)

But even when the questions turned to issues of actual substance, things hardly improved. It was not until a full three quarters of an hour into the debate that the candidates were asked the question about what Stephanopoulos
acknowledged was “the No. 1 issue on Americans’ minds”– the
economy.

Stephanopoulos’ first question to Clinton, though, was clearly pitched from the right:

“Can you make an absolute, read-my-lips pledge that there will be no tax increases of any kind for anyone earning under $200,000 a year? And if the economy is as weak a year from now as it is today, will you persist in your plans to roll back President Bush’s tax cuts for wealthier Americans?”

The assumption would seem to be that there’s something economically or politically dangerous about raising taxes, particularly on the wealthy. Charles Gibson picked up on that theme, pressing Obama about his plan to raise capital gains tax rates to levels of the early 1990s—a position that struck Gibson as bizarre, since lowering these taxes increases government revenue:

“In each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?”

This question rests on two false assumptions. The capital gains tax is paid by a small percentage of the population. As Citizens for Tax Justice pointed out (3/16/06), “The wealthiest 10 percent of taxpayers enjoyed 90 percent of the capital gains eligible for this special tax break.” Gibson’s reference to the 100 million Americans who own stock is irrelevant, since this tax is applied to the sales of stocks and real estate—not the act of having a retirement account.

Gibson’s other point–”History shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up”–might be popular in certain conservative circles, but the evidence to support it is thin. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities pointed out (7/12/07), there is little causal relationship between the capital gains tax cuts and increased federal tax revenue. Economist Jason Furman of the Brookings Institute pointed out the the “Joint Committee on Taxation and Treasury both score raising capital gains taxes as raising revenues” (New Republic, 4/16/08).

In addition, both candidates were pressed by Stephanopoulos about whether they would “treat an Iranian attack on Israel as if it were an attack on the United States.” Stephanopoulos opened this question with a flagrantly misleading statement, saying to Obama: “Iran continues to pursue a nuclear option. Those weapons, if they got them, would probably pose the greatest threat to Israel.” According to the latest National Intelligence Estimate, Iran discontinued its alleged nuclear weapons program in 2003.

Pundits often justify their decision to exclude “second-tier” candidates from debates on the grounds that they distract attention away from the real issues. If presenting a distraction from the real issues is really the problem, perhaps moderators such as Stephanopoulos and Gibson should seriously think of excusing themselves from future debates.

ACTION:
Ask ABC why debate moderators George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson so often derailed the debate away from issues of concern to voters and, in a debate that was supposed to help Democratic voters choose their party’s candidate, framed so many questions from a right wing perspective.

CONTACT:
ABC News
Email: netaudr@abc.com
212-456-7777

Hitting Back at Disney/ABC

BlogPAC just sent out an email asking people to contact George Stephanapoulos and Charlie Gibson to explain their substance free moderation. You can send an email here.

Moveon also has a petition, which you can sign here.

And finally, Obama spoke out against the debate in a town hall meeting.

Apparently, the company that produced Path to 9/11 to tarnish Bill and Hillary Clinton and that worked to undermine labor and screenwriters is also shitting on Obama. Weird!

Franklin And Marshall: Clinton Ahead By Five In Pennsylvania

TPM:

The new poll of Pennsylvania by Franklin and Marshall College, one of the state’s most prominent pollsters, confirms that the Democratic race is a close one. There’s been significant movement since their last poll from just under a month ago:

Clinton 46% (-5)
Obama 41% (+6)

Pollster Terry Madonna thinks the “small town” flap has yet to fully play out with the voters: “With the new commercial and the San Francisco statements, can she push the lead back to double digits?”

McCain: ‘Maybe I’m Digging For The Pony’ In Iraq

Think Progress

Appearing on Hardball’s “College Tour” today, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was asked about the recent offensive led by the Iraqi government in Basra. Admitting that the performance of Iraqi soldiers was poor (at least 1,000 deserted), McCain claimed the rest of the forces did “pretty good”:

In full disclosure and frankness and candor and straight talk, the Maliki movement to Basra had a very big downside to it. As you know, we saw a thousand police and military desert their posts. But the rest of the military did a pretty good job, did a pretty good job. We did secure the port of Basra. Maybe I’m digging for the pony here.

Watch it:

Reuters reported that Maliki’s “crackdown on militias in the southern oil port of Basra appears to have backfired, exposing the weakness of his army and strengthening his political foes ahead of elections.”

McCain has been “digging for the pony” in Iraq for a quite a while. When asked in April 2007 by conservative bloggers about efforts by Sadr to oppose the surge, McCain predicted Sadr wouldn’t end up opposing U.S. forces — but admitted he may be “digging for the pony.” At the same time, Sadr released a statement urging Iraqis to consider the U.S. their “archenemy” and to “turn all their efforts on American forces.” Subsequently, “hundreds of thousands of Shia protesters…burned and trampled on US flags in the Iraqi holy city of Najaf.”

McCain’s constant “digging for the pony” has only created one giant hole.

How the 31st was won

Christopher Arellano and Yosi Sergant both gained 61 votes in the 31st Congressional District Obama Caucus and the tie was broken by a coin toss.

Congratulations Chris Arellano the winner of the coin toss. I believe there were 167 total votes and John Gallogly showed a strong third place finish.

Next Page »