« December 2006 | Main | February 2007 »

January 31, 2007

DNC Winter Meeting Prep

So the blog has been kind of quiet this week, as we've all been working on getting ready for the DNC Winter Meeting, which kicks-off tomorrow in Washington, DC.

We are all really excited about the meeting. After our successes in 2006, which put Democrats in control, not just of the United States Congress (though that's a huge deal), but also Governors' mansions, Legislative bodies and Mayors' offices all across America, Democrats are heading into 2007 strong and united. We've got the "big mo'" as one of my old campaign managers used to say, and we're using it.

In Congress, under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi, Democrats passed every item on the "100 Hours" agenda - ahead of schedule. In the Senate, Democrats are beginning the arduous task of cleaning up the mess the GOP left behind, while also aggressively moving forward to stop the President from escalating the war in Iraq.

Then there is the 2008 election. I'll just quote Governor Dean:

"Our Democratic leaders in Congress are working to make government work for every American, and the talented and diverse group of presidential candidates joining us this weekend are proof that we can bring the same kind of vision, talent and strong leadership to the White House. Democrats are energized and ready to build on our Party's successes, and we're confident that a Democrat will be America's next president."

Over the next three days, we'll provide an inside look into the Winter meeting - with blog posts, pictures and video of all that's going on.

If there is anything special you are interested in hearing about, let us know in the comments. We'll do our best to make sure we touch on every aspect of the meeting and bring you as close to the action as possible.

More Dirty Tricks

In typical GOP fashion, Republicans are accusing Democrats of out of control spending. Yet, the truth is on our side: Democrats are passing the budget that Republicans failed to pass last year.

From the Washington Post:

House and Senate Democratic leaders agreed yesterday to a $463 billion spending plan for the remainder of the fiscal year that would freeze many federal agencies at 2006 levels but include more money for veterans' health, education, scientific research, HIV programs and public parks, among other things.

In an unusual move, the congressional leaders stripped the spending bill of all earmarks, or narrow, special-interest provisions. The measure had to be cobbled together now because Congress did not finish its work last year and failed to pass nine of 11 spending bills.

This is not just another petty fight. Republicans opted not to complete the budget and appropriations process last year, and now the country is within weeks of the worst fiscal mess since the 1996 government shutdown (also caused by the GOP). The Republican-controlled Congress of yesteryear had the choice to finish budget work last year, tough choices and all, or push off the duty they were elected to complete for as long as possible. Surprise, surprise! They chose to shirk their responsibility. And now that Democrats are in charge, they are stuck cleaning up the mess left by the GOP. And still Republicans have the gall to try to blame Democrats for "reckless spending."

For shame.

Wednesday Open Thread

Chat away...

January 30, 2007

White House Has Its Head in the Sand

Thanks, Mr. President...

The Democratic chairman of a House panel examining the government's response to climate change said Tuesday there is evidence that senior Bush administration officials sought repeatedly "to mislead the public by injecting doubt into the science of global warming."

Rep. Henry Waxman (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., said he and the top Republican on his oversight committee, Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia, have sought documents from the administration on climate policy, but repeatedly been rebuffed.

"The committee isn't trying to obtain state secrets or documents that could affect our immediate national security," said Waxman, opening the hearing. "We are simply seeking answers to whether the White House's political staff is inappropriately censoring impartial government scientists."

"We know that the White House possesses documents that contain evidence of an attempt by senior administration officials to mislead the public by injecting doubt into the science of global warming and minimize the potential danger," Waxman said.

More on the document withholding, here.

And check out these video clips from the hearing:

• During a hearing held by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on political influence on government climate change scientists, Rep. Jim Cooper of Tennessee discusses a dinner party in which Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte was barred from uttering the phrase "global warming." (link)
• During a hearing held by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on political influence on government climate change scientists, Chairman Henry Waxman questions Dr. Drew Shindell on edits to various reports forced upon him by Bush Administration officials.(link)
• During a hearing held by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on political influence on government climate change scientists, Democratic New Member Bruce Braley of Iowa responds to Republican New Member Bill Sali on why this sort of oversight is necessary.(link)

When will they take their head out of the sand?

On the Hill: Senate Votes on Minimum Wage Later This Week

Senate watchers are expecting a vote today on an increase in the minimum wage and a vote on the Senate resolution opposing the troop escalation in Iraq. You may recall that last week, Senate Republicans blocked an attempt to raise the minimum wage.

From ABCnews.com:

The Senate is expected to move toward final passage this week on a bill that would increase in the minimum wage by $2.10 over two years — the first such hike in a decade.

[...]

A similar bill to increase the minimum wage passed the House of Representatives earlier this month, but that measure did not include tax breaks for small businesses, which have been tacked onto the Senate bill so that it can gain enough votes to overcome Republican opposition.

We will keep you posted.

[UPDATE: No vote on the resolutions, just the minimum wage vote today.

UPDATE 2: Cloture was invoked, 30 hours of debate will continue on minimum wage bill. Final vote on bill may come as early as Thursday.]

Listen Up!: Senator Schumer's Podcast

You asked the questions, he answered them.

In his DNC podcast, Senator Schumer takes your questions and talks about his new book, Positively American.

Listen here.

Who is the President Interested in Protecting?

Who is the President most interested in protecting?

On one side you have:

"Business groups...that have given strong political and financial backing to Mr. Bush."

vs.

The public.

That's the question to ask when you read this New York Times' article about how the President signed an executive order that says:

President Bush has signed a directive that gives the White House much greater control over the rules and policy statements that the government develops to protect public health, safety, the environment, civil rights and privacy.

In an executive order published last week in the Federal Register, Mr. Bush said that each agency must have a regulatory policy office run by a political appointee, to supervise the development of rules and documents providing guidance to regulated industries. The White House will thus have a gatekeeper in each agency to analyze the costs and the benefits of new rules and to make sure the agencies carry out the president’s priorities.

This strengthens the hand of the White House in shaping rules that have, in the past, often been generated by civil servants and scientific experts.

Rep. Waxman, Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform reacted to the news, saying:

“The executive order allows the political staff at the White House to dictate decisions on health and safety issues, even if the government’s own impartial experts disagree. This is a terrible way to govern, but great news for special interests.”

A terrible way to govern...that pretty much sums up Bush's actions throughout his entire administration.

Tuesday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

January 29, 2007

John McCain - A Video Montage

The myth of John McCain and the Straight Talk Express may soon die. At least that is what the folks at The Real McCain are working on. (And it's about time!) Check out their video montage of McCain, it's a must-see!

Congress' War Powers

A lot of people have been talking about Congress' role in ending the war in Iraq. With a President bent on escalation, ignoring the advice of his own generals, brushing aside the recommendations of the bi-partisan Iraq Study Group and unwilling to listen to the majority of the American people, it is now up to the Congress to try and reign in the President and bring an end to this ever more deadly conflict.

But can they do it? Does Congress have the authority? Is their historical precedent? Well the New York Times weighs in with an editorial, and it seems that they can and there is.

The Constitution’s provision that the president is the commander in chief clearly puts him at the top of the military chain of command. Congress would be overstepping if, for example, it passed a law requiring generals in the field to report directly to the speaker of the House.

But the Constitution also gives Congress an array of war powers, including the power to “declare war,” “raise and support armies” and “make rules concerning captures on land and water.” By “declare war,” the Constitution’s framers did not mean merely firing off a starting gun. In the 18th century, war declarations were often limited in scope — European powers might fight a naval battle in the Americas, for example, but not battle on their own continent. In giving Congress the power to declare war, the Constitution gives it authority to make decisions about a war’s scope and duration.

The Founders, including James Madison, who is often called “the father of the Constitution,” fully expected Congress to use these powers to rein in the commander in chief. “The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it,” Madison cautioned. “It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legislature.”

The whole thing is worth a read, even if it may have you cracking open an old history book or, in this day and age, a wikipedia page, to brush up on your constitutional law.

Just Another Manic Monday Open Thread

Someone's gonna get a pony for this...

President George W. Bush concluded his annual State of the Union address this week with the words “the State of our Union is strong … our cause in the world is right … and tonight that cause goes on.”

Maybe so, but the state of the Bush administration is at its worst yet, according to the latest Newsweek Poll. The president’s approval ratings are at their lowest point in the poll’s history—30 percent—and more than half the country (58 percent) say they wish the Bush presidency were simply over, a sentiment that is almost unanimous among Democrats (86 percent), and is shared by a clear majority (59 percent) of independents and even one in five (21 percent) Republicans.

Half (49 percent) of all registered voters would rather see a Democrat elected president in 2008, compared to just 28 percent who’d prefer the GOP to remain in the White House.

This is an open thread...

January 28, 2007

Sunday Open Thread

Chat away...

January 27, 2007

Saturday Open Thread

I spent my Saturday protesting with hundreds of thousands of people from all over the country who want to see the war in Iraq end. It was my first protest on the Mall, and pretty amazing to see the crush of people coming together with a common purpose.

This is an open thread...

January 26, 2007

'08 GOP Watch

What did you miss this week?

Congress on Iraq

A senior bipartisan Congressional delegation led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today, following their trip to Iraq.

The delegation included Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton; Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos; Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes; Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John Murtha; State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Subcommittee Chairwoman Nita Lowey; and Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee Ranking Member David Hobson.

"Our delegation traveled to Iraq to thank our troops for the way they are doing their difficult jobs under extremely dangerous conditions. We expressed our unwavering support for them, and for their families, as well as our hope that they will come home safely and soon.

"In meetings with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalizad, and senior U.S. military officers, including multi-national commander General George Casey, we stressed our belief that it is well past time for the Iraqis to take primary responsibility for the security of their nation. The delegation's view is that American forces should quickly begin to transition from a combat role to one focused on training, counter-terrorism, force protection, and controlling Iraq's borders.

"We are convinced that there must be a political solution to the problems in Iraq. The sooner Iraqi leaders make necessary political accommodations, including amending their constitution to resolve outstanding differences among all Iraqi communities, the better the chances for ending the sectarian violence. We encourage active diplomacy in the region.

"We were inspired by the patriotism and dedication of the American troops we were privileged to meet. We left Iraq with a renewed appreciation for their courage and the selflessness they bring to the great service they provide to our country."

This comes on the heels of the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee passing a resolution declaring that the further escalation of the Iraq war was not in the country's best interest.

As Senator Jim Webb said after the State of the Union:

As I look at Iraq, I recall the words of former general and soon-to-be President Dwight Eisenhower during the dark days of the Korean War, which had fallen into a bloody stalemate. "When comes the end?" asked the General who had commanded our forces in Europe during World War Two. And as soon as he became President, he brought the Korean War to an end. These Presidents took the right kind of action, for the benefit of the American people and for the health of our relations around the world. Tonight we are calling on this President to take similar action, in both areas. If he does, we will join him. If he does not, we will be showing him the way.

Indeed.

TGIF Open Thread

It's freezing here!

Chat away...

January 25, 2007

All About the Children

Talking about family values, how about making sure kids don't get sick?

From ABC:

Children living in red states -- those in which a majority of the citizens voted Republican in the 2004 presidential election -- may be worse off in terms of health than those living in states that voted Democrat, according to a new book.

The book, "Homeland Insecurity . American Children at Risk," suggests kids in red states are more likely to lack health insurance, live in poverty and die early.

Michael Petit, president of the Every Child Matters Education Fund and author of the book, said politics is largely to blame for the discrepancy. And he adds that political decisions made at the state level have the most impact.

"Where it plays out for individual children and families is in the states -- nowhere more than in so-called red states where children are at significantly greater risk than children in blue states," said Petit in a press conference Wednesday.

Petit used U.S. census data and other government sources to compare states that voted Republican in the 2004 presidential election to those that voted Democratic. To rank the states, he used a set of 11 child-related statistics, several of which were measures of health, such as insurance coverage and prenatal care.

According to his findings, nine of the 10 top states with the best outcomes for children today were blue states. The top 10 states, in order, were Wisconsin, New Jersey, Washington, Minnesota, Nebraska, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Iowa (the sole red state in the group) and New Hampshire.

All 10 of the bottom-rated states were red states -- Wyoming, Georgia, Arkansas, Alabama, South Carolina, Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Louisiana and Mississippi.

According to Petit's research, a child in the bottom 10 states is twice as likely to die by the age of 14 than a child in the top 10 states.

Children in the bottom 10 states were also 1.8 times more likely to be uninsured than their top 10 counterparts, and expectant mothers were more than twice as likely to receive inadequate prenatal care.

The data show that "children fare much better today if they happen to live in some states instead of others," said Dr. Joel Alpert, past president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, during Wednesday's press conference.

"Children who live in blue states do better. Children who live in red states do worse. It's there in the data," he said. "The data are convincing, and they are alarming."

Health policy experts said the findings establish a likely link between a state's politics and its efforts to safeguard children's health.

"The primary programs we have to insure kids -- namely Medicaid -- are basically federally funded state programs," said Timothy Jost, professor of health care law at the Washington and Lee University School of Law.

Jost said that individual states have a lot of sway when it comes to the health coverage that children receive.

"States that tend to be politically and economically conservative have less inclusive medical assistance programs," he said.

"So, it would make a great deal of sense that states that are Republican have conservative social and economic policies that lead to a decreased health status for poor children."

Healthcare for children is one of the issues which I have learned more and more about since coming to the DNC, because it is a passion of Governor Dean's. He often talks about it, deviating from prepared remarks, when he travels around the country.

When I worked for Ciro Rodriguez he often said that a society should be judged by how it cares for it's most vulnerable citizens - it's children and it's seniors. I think we could do a better job at both, and Democrats are committed to real solutions for health care - with policies that benefits the people and not the pharmaceutical industry.

Read more over here, or at the Speaker's site, here.

Confronting Bush Over the Iraq War

As the Bush administration continues to escalate the civil war in Iraq with tens of thousands of additional troops, the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee took the first step in their opposition with a resolution declaring the escalation "not in the national interest."

Senator Jim Webb, who sits on the Foreign Relations Committee and gave the Democratic response to Tuesday's State of the Union address, said the resolution "will serve notice to this administration... that when it comes to the troops, it has to use them in a more responsible fashion."

The escalation plan is wildly unpopular -- with Americans, with the troops, with the Generals, and with the foreign policy experts all in opposition. President Bush decided to ignore everybody, including the Congress, and proceed anyway. This resolution will serve as a warning that, as Webb told the Daily Press, "Congress is going to step up and be an equal player."

The resolution, according to the Virginian-Pilot, is expected to come to the Senate floor next week.

Thursday Open Thread

What's up, doc?

January 24, 2007

LISTEN UP: Ask Senator Schumer!

Senator Schumer, yesterday.

This week the DNC Podcast will host New York Senator Chuck Schumer, Vice-Chair of the Senate Democratic Caucus, chairman the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), and author of the new book, Positively American: Winning Back the Middle-Class Majority One Family at a Time.

In Positively American, the Senator draws on his vast experience in Democratic politics. He looks at where the Democrats went wrong in the first part of this century, and describes how they started to right the ship in 2006. He looks ahead to 2008 and the opportunity to become the dominant party for years to come.

Now Senator Schumer wants to hear from you. In the comments below, or via e-mail, submit your questions for Senator Schumer. We'll select the best one and use it during this week's Podcast.

Check out an excerpt from Positively American after the jump!

Keep reading "LISTEN UP: Ask Senator Schumer!"

GOP Blocks Minimum Wage Increase

Maybe they think we should go another ten years without an increase in the minimum wage?

It's not enough that about 9 out of 10 Americans realize that it's way past time we increase the minimum wage. It's not enough that families across the nation are struggling to make ends meet. It's not enough that the House already voted for a no-strings-attached minimum wage bill. Senate Republicans decided they would block an increase in the minimum wage.

What a disgrace.

Democrats were united in the vote to help working families keep up with rising costs. Despite several Senate Republicans jumping ship, the final vote fell just short of the 60 required to end debate.

Republicans are attempting to hold the livelihood of working men and women hostage in an attempt to include more business tax cuts in the bill. As Senator Kennedy said, "The first reason that this bill should remain clean is that adding a tax package to this bill creates procedural hurdles that will delay - perhaps significantly - the implementation of the increase." Bob Geiger explains:

A vote on those business tax breaks is not expected until early next week and, if that measure is passed, a quick cloture vote and a final vote on the minimum wage would follow shortly thereafter.

However, a minimum wage bill passed with tax breaks tacked on would then have to go to conference with the House -- to reconcile the differences in bills passed -- and it may run afoul of the House leadership, which has maintained that raising the minimum wage should be a straightforward endeavor that even Republicans can agree to without more tax cuts for business.

How long do Republicans who supported increasing their own pay plan on denying it to their fellow Americans?

At Least Some GOPers Still *Heart* GWB

Like freshman GOPer Michele Bachmann of Minnesota....

Local Minnesota station KSTP reports:

While the President was signing autographs for members of Congress after the speech, the sixth-district Republican put her hand on Bush's shoulder. However, it wasn't just a tap. After he signed an autograph for her, Bachmann grabbed the president and did not let go for almost 30 seconds.

After signing the autograph for Bachmann, the president turns away, but Bachmann doesn't let go. In fact, the video shows her reaching out to get a better grip on him.

Bush then leans over to kiss another congresswoman, but Bachmann is still holding on. Bachmann then gets more attention, a kiss and an embrace from the president. A few seconds later, Bachman's hand finally comes off the presidential shoulder.

(h/t to Minnesota Monitor, who have much more here and here.)

Post-Game Analysis

Sometimes the New York Times' editorial board reads my mind:

When Republicans controlled Congress and the White House, Mr. Bush’s only real interest was in making their majority permanent; consultation meant telling the Democrats what he had decided.

Neither broken promises nor failed policies changed Mr. Bush’s mind. So the nation has been saddled with tax cuts that have turned a budget surplus into a big deficit, education reform that has been badly managed and underfinanced, far-right judges with scant qualifications, the dismantling of regulations in order to benefit corporations at the expense of workers, and a triumph of ideology over science in policy making on the environment and medical research. All along, Americans’ civil liberties and the constitutional balance have been trampled by a president determined to assert ever more power.

Now that the Democrats have taken Congress, Mr. Bush is acting as if he’d had the door to compromise open all along and the Democrats had refused to walk through it...

...Mr. Bush almost certainly didn’t intend it, but his speech did reinforce one vital political fact — that it’s not just up to him anymore.

And if you didn't check it out last night, ThinkProgress did a killer job fact-checking the State of the Union in real time. Watch as their rapid response is synchronized with the video of President Bush’s speech.

[Update by Christy:] Yeah, this just proves Tracy does heart sports, and she's been hiding it all along. Maybe she's a closet Wizards fan.

Wednesday Morning Open Thread

Happy Hump Day! What did you think of the State of the Union?

January 23, 2007

The State of Our Union

Governor Dean:

“Democrats welcome President Bush’s call to achieve ‘big things’ for the American people, but he should remember that the American people know actions speak louder than words. For too long, the words from this President have not matched the action required to solve the problems that hard working Americans face. From the escalation of the war in Iraq to his new health care tax to the energy crisis, once again tonight, we heard more hollow promises and empty proposals that just won’t fix the problems.

“Last November, the American people spoke loud and clear. Democrats heard what they had to say and are focused on continuing to deliver on the promises we made as we pass an increase in the minimum wage, improve our homeland security, help more kids go to college and promote life saving stem cell research. We hope the President will make good on his rhetoric this time and truly work with the bipartisan Congress to get things done for the American people.”

Speaker Pelosi and Senate Leader Reid just released the following statement:

"Congress has demonstrated in the last three weeks that great things happen for the American people when we work together. In his sixth State of the Union Address, President Bush once again talked about many of the issues facing our country. It is long past time to stop talking about our problems and start working to solve them. The Congress is delivering results, and doing it in a new way - by reaching across the aisle and putting the American people first. Tonight, we welcomed President Bush's overtures of bipartisanship and we hope to begin working with him to move our country in a new direction.

"Energy independence is a national security issue and an economic security issue. President Bush's goals for energy independence are commendable, but we now must get straight to work on a real national energy policy. In Congress, we have already begun work in earnest on renewable fuels, on global warming, and on shifting energy tax incentives away from Big Oil. We ask the President to join us to take real steps forward.

"Unfortunately, tonight the President demonstrated he has not listened to Americans' single greatest concern: the war in Iraq. The overwhelming majority of Americans, military leaders, and a bipartisan coalition in Congress oppose the President's plan to escalate the war. Democrats, Republicans, and the bipartisan Iraq Study Group have offered the President a plan to end our open-ended commitment to Iraq, transition the U.S. mission, and begin the phased redeployment of American troops. While the President continues to ignore the will of the country, Congress will not ignore this President's failed policy. His plan will receive an up-or-down vote in both the House and the Senate, and we will continue to hold him accountable for changing course in Iraq.

"When it comes to health care, we welcome the President's commitment to help the 47 million people living without health care and the millions more in danger of losing it. However, the President's plan falls short of meeting the health care challenge. Health care is a crisis in costs and coverage, and the President's plan will make both fronts worse for millions of Americans.

"Last November, Americans asked all of us in Washington to work together. Democrats will continue to take America in a new direction by making our nation energy secure, improving access to affordable health care, cutting costs for middle class families, and working to end the war in Iraq."

The President's seventh State of the Union address did not bring our nation fresh ideas or solid plans to fix the problems we face, just more empty rhetoric and hollow promises.

Use this as an open thread...

The Democratic Response to the State of the Union

Senator James Webb:

In short, the middle class of this country, our historic backbone and our best hope for a strong society in the future, is losing its place at the table. Our workers know this, through painful experience. Our white-collar professionals are beginning to understand it, as their jobs start disappearing also. And they expect, rightly, that in this age of globalization, their government has a duty to insist that their concerns be dealt with fairly in the international marketplace. In the early days of our republic, President Andrew Jackson established an important principle of American-style democracy – that we should measure the health of our society not at its apex, but at its base. Not with the numbers that come out of Wall Street, but with the living conditions that exist on Main Street. We must recapture that spirit today.

And on Iraq...

The President took us into this war recklessly. He disregarded warnings from the national security adviser during the first Gulf War, the chief of staff of the army, two former commanding generals of the Central Command, whose jurisdiction includes Iraq, the director of operations on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many, many others with great integrity and long experience in national security affairs. We are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable – and predicted – disarray that has followed....

The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought; nor does the majority of our military. We need a new direction. Not one step back from the war against international terrorism. Not a precipitous withdrawal that ignores the possibility of further chaos. But an immediate shift toward strong regionally-based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq's cities, and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq.

See the video, here. Or read the Senator's full remarks, after the jump...

Keep reading "The Democratic Response to the State of the Union"

Pre-SOTU Open Thread

A picture of The Capitol building I snapped earlier tonight.

This is an open thread...

State of the Union Bingo!

Mark a square on your Bingo card every time President Bush says one of 25 key words. When you have marked 5 squares in a row (horizontally, vertically, or diagonally), you score Bingo! Click the "Reset Bingo Card" button to create a unique card for every guest. Play online or print the bingo card and use the Bush-inspired State of the Union Bingo chips.

Bingo Card | Bingo Chips

The Crime, The Cover-up, The Trial

"They're trying to set me up. They want me to be the sacrificial lamb. I will not be sacrificed so Karl Rove can be protected."

- Scooter Libby attorney Theodore Wells, recalling a conversation between Libby and his boss, Vice President Dick Cheney in 2003

The Scooter Libby trial got underway today, with opening statements being made by both sides. It would seem that things are going to get pretty interesting, if the opening statements are anything to go by.

Check these new claims, courtesy of ThinkProgress:

• “Vice President Cheney himself directed Scooter Libby to essentially go around protocol and deal with the press and handle press himself…to try to beat back the criticism of administration critic Joe Wilson.”
• Cheney personally “wrote out for Scooter Libby what Libby should say in a conversation with Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper.”
• “Scooter Libby destroyed a note from Vice President Cheney about their conversations and about how Vice President Cheney wanted the Wilson matter handled.”

Plus, don't miss FireDogLake, whose fearless team is live-blogging the trial and doing a bang-up job

Markos has his take, here. My favorite part? Besides the title:

No matter which story you choose to believe -- the prosecutors or the defense -- they both paint a bleak picture for the administration. A veritable cornucopia of incompetence.

Watch It!: Governor Dean on TV

Catch Governor Dean on TV tonight. He'll be doing three interviews, back to back.

The line-up:

MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews at 5:00 pm

CNN's Situation Room at 5:15 pm

Bloomberg's Money and Politics 5:30 pm

Here's Hoping

As you may have heard, some genius at the White House decided that it would be fun to start comparing George W. Bush to Abraham Lincoln, and thus a talking point was born. Luckily, John Stewart and John Oliver, quickly debunked that:

But recently, another comparison has been made - to Nixon. Perhaps, this one is more apt. With an approval rating of just 28 percent and with 72 percent of Americans thinking that he should seek Congressional approval for any escalation of the war in Iraq, the President is dipping to dangerous lows with the American people.

As Matt pointed out yesterday:

Bush's approval is at 28, which is four points higher than Nixon's approval at his point of departure. Bush's disapproval is two points lower than Nixon's when he said 'the end'.

Now of course this isn't the first time we've seen Bush/Nixon comparisons. UVA Professor Larry Sabato pointed out the disturbing trend over a year ago (and if the graph was updated, it'd be even lower):

He noted:

The lesson is obvious, Mr. President: You're a lot closer to Nixon than you are to Eisenhower, Reagan, and Clinton. And that's not where you want to be. Nixon's second term ended rather badly, as you will recall.

But then there was this too:

The good news is that you've got enough time and ocean left to turn your ship of state around, plus you have the benefit of still-friendly GOP majorities in both houses of Congress for at least another year.

It would seem that shipped has sailed.

By his own hand, the President has painted himself into a corner. But tonight is the night he can begin to undo what he has done. In his State of the Union speech, the President has the chance to offer up something new, something different. Instead of a parade of broken promises and empty rhetoric, he can present the American people with a fresh approach and new ideas.

He can make good on his repeated assurances to work with the new Democratic Congress. He can acknowledge the mandate for change that was the November elections, and he can join with the Congress to solve the problems the American people need to be solved - both at home and abroad.

Our country faces problems which are too big for any one person or one Party to solve. But we can bring about real change, real progress, if we work together. Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid have already expressed their willingness, and the willingness of the Congress and the Senate, to work with the President to serve the American people. The question is, is willing to step out from behind the podium, let go of his "go it alone" approach, and work with them?

Tuesday Open Thread

The nominations are in!

Oh, and the State of the Union is tonight. So that will be fun. More on that later!

This is an open thread...

January 22, 2007

The Title of the Post Says It All!

"Nancy Pelosi, Wildly Popular Speaker of the House"

Go Read!

On the 34th Anniversary of Roe vs. Wade

Governor Dean:

"Today marks the 34th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade. Democrats across the country stand with millions of Americans in recognizing and reaffirming the central message of this decision: that women have the right and freedom to make their own decisions about their health care.

"Democrats are committed to finding common ground in this debate that focuses on increased education and prevention that reduces the number of abortions each year in the United States. A woman’s decision about her own reproductive health care is a very personal and difficult choice but it should remain her own and not the decision of politicians in Washington."

Speaker Pelosi:

"Today, we observe the 34th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision that affirmed a woman's right to make her own reproductive health care decisions.

"Roe v. Wade is based on a woman's fundamental right to privacy, a value that all Americans cherish. It established that decisions about whether to have a child do not and should not rest with the government. A woman – in consultation with her family, her physician, and her faith – is best qualified to make that decision.

"The 110th Congress signals an end to 12 years of destructive debate putting politics above science and restricting women's rights afforded by the Constitution. In this new Congress, we will work together in a bipartisan way to reduce the number of abortions by preventing unintended pregnancies through comprehensive sexuality education and access to family planning in the U.S. and abroad.

"As I have throughout my time in Congress, I will continue to work to ensure a woman's right to choose. We must preserve the right to privacy while promoting a comprehensive approach to reproductive health care, including planning for healthy families."

From Christy Agner, Director of the DNC's Women's Vote Center:

Today I recognize Roe v. Wade, a decision that came after my birth, but before my first kiss. Today I celebrate the fact that The Democratic Party truly respects everyone's opinion on the issue of abortion, but fights to allow all choices to be made by individual Americans, not the government. This morning I spoke to some family members who had come into DC for the March for Life and to attend a large mass to pray on the issue. I myself will attend a rally at the Supreme Court with the National Organization for Women to stand in support of the decision for choice. Whether its my family, your family, or the Democratic Party family, there can be healthy respect for choices about reproduction. I'm proud to work for a Party that does not require a litmus test - but that respects different opinions, supports the choices of individuals in this country, and protects their right to privacy.

And on a personal note...

Both of my parents are Republicans. My grandparents are Republicans. My aunts, uncles, cousins, the list goes on and on. And yet, somehow, here I am. Going against the grain, a true blue Democrat. And the thing is, I don't remember ever not considering myself a Democrat. When I think back to my first stages of political awareness, sometime early in my teen years, it occurs to me that I never considered that I might be a Republican. It just didn't fit. The main reason for this early alignment? Roe vs. Wade.

I knew I could never identify with a Party that didn't respect or trust me enough to give me the right to make my own choices about my reproductive health. Sometime between then and now, everything else fell into place, and I became more than just a single-issue voter, but this was the issue that was my gateway into Democratic politics.

Today, on this anniversary, I am especially proud to work for the Party that has fought for a woman's right to choose for 34 years, and who will keep fighting to protect those rights for years to come.

For more on what today's anniversay means, check out Jessica and Jill, who wrote two of my favorite posts today.

Monday Morning Open Thread

Hope everyone saw the Bears win on Sunday! This is an open thread, talk amongst yourselves...

[Update by Tracy]: I knew Christy was going to hijack the open thread for sports stuff, and ignore the truly important news of the week, which is that Tuesday is a big day! Huge! One we've been waiting all year for! Something way better than the SOTU - Oscar nominations will be announced tomorrow morning bright and early! Discuss...

January 21, 2007

State of the Union

President Bush delivers his State of the Union (SOTU) address on Tuesday, January 23. Already, Americans are looking ahead to the speech...and then reflecting back on previous promises made by the president at the "SOTU."

And then shaking our heads.

Turns out Bush has left a trail of broken promises following his previous SOTU's.

SOTU 2003: President Bush Spoke of Providing All Americans with Affordable Health Care. "We must work toward a system in which all Americans have a good insurance policy, choose their own doctors, and seniors and low-income Americans receive the help they need."

But Health Care Premiums Have Increased by Over 80 Percent. (U.S. Census Bureau, 8/29/06)

SOTU 2002: Bush Said Energy Must Be Made More Affordable. In 2002, President Bush said, "Good jobs also depend on reliable and affordable energy. This Congress must act to encourage conservation, promote technology, build infrastructure, and it must act to increase energy production at home so America is less dependent on foreign oil."

But Under Bush Prices Have Climbed. Heating Costs Have Increased 64 Percent. Gas Prices 86% Higher.

That's but a small sample...you can read more here, here, and here. (Those are all .pdf's, champ)

It's a little sad to read all the promises that were never meant to be kept. For a break from the seriousness, you can start a pool with your friends -- bet on who the special guests will be. Bet on what Harry Reid will be wearing. Bet on how many standing ovations the Republicans give Bush.

But don't bother listening to the speech, because it's unlikely any of it will actually happen.

Sunday Morning Open Thread

The Super Bowl is on February 4th...let's hope the Chicago Bears are there. This is an open thread.

January 20, 2007

Real Weekend Open Thread

Hope y'all are having a good one -- don't forget the Bears play tomorrow -- Go BEARS!!

This is an open thread...

[Update by Tracy]: Happy Birthday to Christy McConville!

January 19, 2007

Weekend Open Thread

Happy Birthday Tracy Russo! Use this as an open thread...

Smoke-and-Mirrors War Budgeting to End

Hearings have begun on past and future costs of the war in Iraq, with House Budget Committee chairman John Spratt providing long-overdue oversight that would never happen with the old rubber stamp Republican Congress.

Already, the hearings have yielded results. During Thursday's hearing, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England stated that Bush's latest request for over $100 billion would be the last time they would be using "emergency" appropriations that are supposed to be used for actual unforeseen emergencies.

An editorial in the Denver Post condemned the irresponsible Bush budgeting and praised the Democratic Congress:

Such emergency measures are properly used for unforeseeable disasters like Hurricane Katrina and were appropriate to pay the start-up costs of the war on terror in the wake of Sept. 11. But it's ludicrous to use the mechanism year after year to handle the costs of the ongoing deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan.

At Thursday's hearing, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England told the Budget Committee that the president's upcoming $100 billion-plus emergency request for the 2007 budget year would be the last such request. The administration's budget request for 2008 - to be presented the same day as the supplemental request for the current year - will be accompanied by an estimate for the war's costs in that year, though the figure might be adjusted later, England said.
[...]
We applaud the efforts of Spratt and his colleagues to get a handle on the war's budgetary impact. If we can't even calculate the Iraq war's cost to the treasury, how can we even hope to measure its price in lives and America's standing in the world.

The smoke-and-mirrors budgeting is an attempt to fund the war outside the normal federal budget, but no longer will the Bush administration be able to avoid scrutiny on these important issues.

UPDATE: TPM Muckraker's Justin Rood reports that House Government Reform Committee chairman Henry Waxman has invited the former head of the U.S. Coalition Provisional Authority, Paul Bremer, to testify in early February about "how nearly $9 billion in reconstruction funds went missing -- or in audit-speak, was 'disbursed. . . without accountability.'"

Ethics Reform Bill Passes in the Senate

For those of you who believe good will always prevail over evil, maybe you've got something there. Senate Republicans capitulated yesterday and passed new ethics rules in the Senate. That's right, even the GOP has to concede that the culture of corruption is over in Congress. The New York Times breaks it down:

The Senate passed a broad overhaul of ethics, lobbying and earmark regulations yesterday after Democratic and Republican leaders broke a two-day logjam over GOP amendments. ... The bill (S 1) would ban senators and their staff from accepting meals, gifts and trips from lobbyists; prohibit senators from negotiating for private-sector jobs while still in office; create a point of order against bills that do not identify the sponsors of earmarks; establish a database of lobbyists' contacts and activities; and force lobbyists to certify that they have complied with the gift ban.

Happy Friday everyone!

My Teacher, My Hero

An Op/Ed in the New York Times this morning talks about the plight of teachers -- the one not seen on the silver screen.

From the article:

At the beginning of Ms. Swank's new movie, "Freedom Writers," her character, a teacher named Erin Gruwell, walks into her Long Beach, Calif., classroom, and the camera pans across the room to show us what we are supposed to believe is a terribly shabby learning environment. Any experienced educator will have already noted that not only does she have the right key to get into the room but, unlike the seventh-grade science teacher in my current school, she has a door to put the key into. The worst thing about Ms. Gruwell's classroom seems to be graffiti on the desks, and crooked blinds.

I felt like shouting, Hey, at least you have blinds! My first classroom didn't, but it did have a family of pigeons living next to the window, whose pane was a cracked piece of plastic. During the winter, snowflakes blew in. The pigeons competed with the mice and cockroaches for the students' attention.

The piece goes on to talk about the pressure placed on teachers -- they are called "incompetent and underqualified," and ignored when they ask for basic materials for their classrooms, or even a living wage for themselves. They are attacked over and over again while they try to do their job on the meager resources we've given them -- and don't even get me started on class sizes and special ed.

"Freedom Writers," like all teacher movies this side of "The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie," is presented as a celebration of teaching, but its message is that poor students need only love, idealism and martyrdom.

I won't argue the need for more of the first two, but I'm always surprised at how, once a Ms. Gruwell wins over a class with clowning, tears, rewards and motivational speeches, there is nothing those kids can't do. It is as if all the previously insurmountable obstacles students face could be erased by a 10-minute pep talk or a fancy dinner. This trivializes not only the difficulties many real students must overcome, but also the hard-earned skill and tireless effort real teachers must use to help those students succeed.

While we all want what's best for our kids, we need to make sure we're not attacking educators who want the same. To all my friends who are teachers -- you guys are my heroes.

Friday Morning Open Thread

It's Friday morning, and here is your open thread...

January 18, 2007

Thursday Night Open Thread

Let it all out here in our open thread...

Livin' It Up

Apparently MTV has passed on making a Real World style documentary on the four Democratic lawmakers living in a Washington DC row house on Capitol Hill.

That hasn't discouraged the NY Times from writing an article about the situation.

So, laugh it up:

"I once had to pick up a mouse by the tail that Durbin refused to pick up," complained Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, referring to his roommate Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois.

This characterization is not fair to Mr. Durbin, interjected another tenant in the Capitol Hill row house, Representative Bill Delahunt of Massachusetts. For starters, it overlooks Mr. Durbin’s gift for killing rats. "He will kill them with his bare hands," Mr. Delahunt marveled.

The biggest news out of this article: Senator Chuck Schumer doesn't make his bed. For political news, read all about the first 100 hours of the House of Representatives under Democratic leadership.

First 100 Hours Over

Even haters can't help but admit that Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats are getting things done. The NY Times calls the first 100 hours "a qualified success."

A quick read of the article reveals the "qualified" related to just one thing, the pay-as-you-go rules. But on the whole, the article is pretty much exuberantly hopeful.

More important in terms of substantive future legislation, the ability of the Democrats to win over significant numbers of Republicans on most votes signals the slim but enticing possibility of Democratic mastery over a demoralized Republican Party -- one that has thrived on polarized partisan warfare in recent years.

If the new bipartisanship takes root, the prospects for health care legislation and immigration reform sharply improve.

The following bills have passed the House, and will now go to the Senate and the White House on the path to becoming law:

• Ethics reform,


• An increase in the federal minimum wage for the first time in 10 years,


• Enactment of the 9-11 commission's recommendations,


• Expanded stem-cell research,


• Government negotiation of prices with prescription drug companies,


• Student loan interest rates cut in half,


• The elimination of billions in subsidies for big oil companies.

Now if the Chicago Bears could just get to and win the Super Bowl, this year would be off to a fantastic start.

Senate Republicans Vote No on Ethics

Despite being voted out of power by an American public sick of corruption, the Senate Republicans don't seem to have learned their lesson. Yesterday, they voted against strengthening the body's ethics rules. Yup, the Republicans joined together to vote down being more accountable.

From the Washington Post:

Senate Republicans scuttled broad legislation last night to curtail lobbyists' influence and tighten congressional ethics rules, refusing to let the bill pass without a vote on an unrelated measure...But its [the ethics bill] unexpected collapse last night infuriated Democrats and the government watchdog groups that had been pushing it since the lobbying scandals that rocked the last Congress. Proponents charged that Republicans had used the spending-control measure as a ruse to thwart ethics rules they dared not defeat in a straight vote.

Republicans are becoming a parody of themselves. As Gob used to say on Arrested Development - oh, come on!

A Military Mom's Perspective

Our new podcast is a conversation with activist and military mom Nita Martin. She is the mother of two Marines who have served multiple tours in Iraq. It's a reminder of the strains that the president's failed Iraq policy has placed on our already thinly stretched military and their families.

You can listen here.

Thursday Morning Open Thread

Good morning...this is an open thread.

Update/News You Can Use:

Bush Administration Flip Flops on Illegal Wiretapping: The Bush administration, in a surprise reversal, said on Wednesday that it had agreed to give a secret court jurisdiction over the National Security Agency’s wiretapping program and would end its practice of eavesdropping without warrants on Americans suspected of ties to terrorists. ... Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales is expected to face hostile questioning on Thursday from the Senate Judiciary Committee on the program.

Dems Address Energy Bill in the House Today: Newly empowered House Democrats are optimistic they can push through an energy package of $15 billion in fees, taxes and royalties on oil and gas companies to use to promote renewable fuels.

Democratic Senate Takes a Stand on Iraq: The Senate set the stage on Wednesday for a direct clash with President Bush over the war, with two senior Democrats and a prominent Republican introducing a symbolic measure to declare that the administration’s plan to send additional troops to Iraq runs counter to the national interest.

Bills on Climate Move to Spotlight in New Congress: Legislation to control global warming that once had a passionate but quixotic ring to it is now serious business. Congressional Democrats are increasingly determined to wrest control of the issue from the White House and impose the mandatory controls on carbon dioxide emissions that most smokestack industries have long opposed.

Senate Republicans Block Ethics Reform: the proposals appeared dead for now after 46 Senate Republicans blocked a vote on a broad ethics and lobbying bill. Fifty Democrats and one Republican, Senator Gordon H. Smith of Oregon, supported going ahead with the vote, but under Senate rules, 65 votes were needed to prevail.

January 17, 2007

Ending Big Oil Subsidies and Investing in Energy Independence

The last item on the 100 Hours Agenda? Rolling back multi-million dollar subsidies the GOP-controlled Congress awarded to Big Oil and investing in energy independence.

From the LA Times:

When oil company executives came before the Republican-controlled Congress in 2005 to defend their record profits amid high gasoline prices, they were spared the indignity of being sworn in under bright TV lights, as the tobacco chiefs had been a decade earlier.

But with Democrats in charge, perhaps no industry will find the new Congress less hospitable than the oil industry.

That will be underscored Thursday when the House is expected to approve a bill that would repeal billions of dollars in oil industry tax breaks passed by the GOP-controlled Congress.

The measure would raise about $14 billion over 10 years by repealing the tax breaks and by closing a loophole that allowed royalty-free offshore oil leases. The money would be used to promote energy conservation and develop alternative fuels.

Now, just for fun, watch Big Oil try and play "poor me". Someone might need to call the WAAAmbluence:

"This measure is purely political with the goal of punishing an industry that has low favorability on Capitol Hill," said Barry Russell, president of the Independent Petroleum Assn. of America.

Yes. Poor Big Oil. Nobody likes you. Everybody hates you. Guess you'll just eat worms - maybe gourmet worms with those record profits ($97 billion) you made last year while gas prices sky-rocketed?

In the meantime, the majority of Americans (who recognize a handout when they see one), will smile as the new Democratic Congress takes away your ridiculous subsidies and instead invests in clean, renewable, and alternative energy resources, promotes new emerging energy technologies and develops greater efficiency.

Check the facts and read the whole bill, here.

Open Thread

MoDO:

So after scaring Americans into backing the Sack of Iraq by warning that radicals could get W.M.D., now he’s trying to scare Americans into supporting the Surge in Iraq by warning that radicals could get W.M.D.

So many deaths, so little progress.

January 16, 2007

Making College Affordable - Now and in the Future

"This is really the first time that an entire generation of Americans has had to go deeply into debt in order to get a college degree. Public service professions, like teaching, are suffering, because graduates often cannot manage their college debt on public service salaries. And many would-be students as many as 200,000 per year are choosing to delay or forgo attending college because they can't afford it."

"This poses a serious threat not just to students and families, but to our nation's economy and to our future."
- Congressman George Miller (D-CA)

“Student debt is like quicksand – it swallows you up before you have a chance to gain your footing. Graduating from college should kick start a young person’s professional life, but massive debt will just bog you down for decades."
- Senator Chuck Schumer, (D-NY)

As part of their first 100 Hours Agenda, Democrats in the House are expected to vote tomorrow on the “College Student Relief Act of 2007” - which will cut interest rates in half on loans for middle class borrowers to a fixed rate of 3.4 percent, saving the average student thousands over the life of his or her loans.

Some facts about the rising cost of college and student aid:

• The costs of attending college continue to skyrocket - putting college out-of-reach for more and more students. Tuition and fees at public universities have increased by 41 percent after inflation since the 2000-2001 school year and tuition and fees at private universities have jumped by 17 percent after inflation.
• In addition to tuition and fees rising, interest rates on student loans have risen. Over the last five years, the interest rates on student loans have jumped by almost 2 percentage points - further increasing the cost of college. More and more students are staggering under the load of student debt - with the typical student borrower now graduating from college with $17,500 in debt.
• According to studies from the Department of Education, financial barriers will prevent 4.4 million high school graduates from attending a four-year public college over the next decade, and prevent another two million high school graduates from attending any college at all.
• More than ever, the health of our economy rests on having a highly-skilled and well-educated workforce. College access is the key to our remaining strong in the face of an increasingly competitive global economy. Without changes, by the year 2020, the United States is projected to face a shortage of up to 12 million college-educated workers, directly threatening America's economic strength.

Read the bill, here.

Tuesday Open Thread

This weekend it was reported that James Dobson (the ultra extreme religious right-wing head of Focus on the Family) said,

"I would not vote for John McCain under any circumstances."

That makes two of us.

Benchmarks and Accountability

Finally, with a Democratic Congress, the Bush administration is facing the tough questions on the mishandling of the war in Iraq. Appearing in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice received harsh criticism over the President Bush's plans to escalate the civil war in Iraq with tens of thousands of additional troops.

In his speech to the nation on Wednesday, Bush laid out yet another series of benchmarks--not for himself, of course, but for the Iraqi government--claiming that "America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced."

But let's look at the Bush administration's history when it comes to holding the Iraqi government accountable. Democratic Senator Carl Levin had this to say to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates about the track record of the Iraqi government in meeting past benchmarks:

• Iraqi President Talibani said in August 2006 that Iraqi forces would "take over security in all Iraqi provinces by the end of 2006." That pledge has not been kept.
• Prime Minister Maliki said last June that he would disband the militias and illegal armed groups as part of his national reconciliation plan, and in October he set the timetable for disbanding the militias as the end of 2006. That commitment has not been kept.
• The Iraqi Constitutional Review Commission was to present its recommendations for changes in the Constitution to the Council of Representatives within four months of the formation of the Government last May. The Commission has yet to formulate any recommendations.
• Prime Minister Maliki put forward a series of reconciliation milestones to be completed by the end of 2006 or early 2007, including approval of the Provincial Election Law, the Petroleum Law, a new De-Baathification Law, and the Militia Law. Not one of these laws has been enacted.
• The Iraqi army pledged six battalions in support of American and Coalition efforts during Operation Forward Together last summer. In fact, Iraqis provided only two battalions.

In response, Secretary Gates attempted to defend the use of the same failed policies by arguing it was different this time because "they really do seem to be eager to take control of this security."

Sound familiar?

President Bush, May 1, 2006: "They said [Iraqi leaders] were optimistic people, that they're full of energy and they're very eager to succeed."

It's the same thing all over again...

January 15, 2007

Martin Luther King, Jr. Day Open Thread

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
-Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Governor Dean:

"Today, Americans across the country celebrate the legacy of a man who gave us a powerful vision for our nation. It is only fitting that this year we broke ground on the long overdue memorial on the national mall which will celebrate Dr. Marin Luther King, Jr. This historic monument will convey to all who visit the nation's capital the importance of Dr. King's invaluable contributions to our country.

"Over forty years after Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech, our nation faces numerous challenges as we strive for the bright future that Dr. King envisioned. Our country remains at war, and we are still struggling to fight the scourges of poverty that were so obvious during the tragedies of Hurricane Katrina. Dr. King's dream of social and economic justice, his call for peace and his fight to fulfill the great dream of a shining America full of potential and greatness are even more relevant today.

"As we take this time to remember a man who impacted us all, let us also remember Dr. King's commitment to service and his belief that all men and women can achieve greatness by serving the greater community. It is in this spirit that we recommit ourselves on Martin Luther King Jr. Day to working together to create a new direction for America and to make the dream a reality.”

January 14, 2007

Honoring the Memory of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Today we honor the life and memory of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. A Baptist Minister, King won the Nobel Peace Prize for his work to promote racial equality and desegregation through nonviolence. On this day when we honor King's life, we pay tribute to a man who changed this country for the better, a man who will never be forgotten.

Best known for his "I Have a Dream" speech, King was a civil rights leader who will remain part of our collective conscious forever. King's accomplishments are too numerous to fully list, but here is a sample:

* President of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, a leading civil rights organization. The organization combined Christian ideals with the techniques of Gandhi.

* Led a monumental demonstration in Birmingham, Alabama that made him a household name nearly worldwide. His "Letter from Birmingham Jail," written while he was in police custody after being arrested for peacefully protesting segregation, explains why the civil rights movement was justified in using civil disobedience.

* King directed the March on Washington, a march involving over 200,000 people in Washington, D.C. that culminated with his "I Have a Dream" speech at the Lincoln Memorial.

* King was named Man of the Year by Time Magazine in 1963.

* King wrote five books and numerous articles; he was arrested upwards of twenty times; and was assaulted at least four times.

Two of my favorite quotes by a man of never-ending wisdom:

We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools.

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

Celebrate the life of Martin Luther King Jr. by remembering his words.

Sunday Open Thread

Discuss the talking heads...

January 13, 2007

Saturday Open Thread

Chat away...

January 12, 2007

TGIF Open Thread

Heads up! You can catch Governor Dean on CNN's The Situation Room today at 5:10 p.m. and on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews at 5:20 p.m.

[Updated with earlier times!]

This is an open thread...

January 11, 2007

Can't Get Enough Convention News?

Well, neither can we!

New West Politics has has an article up, highlighting Governor Dean's commitment to Denver as a reflection of his commitment to the 50-State Strategy, and making sure the Democratic Party is a truly national party.

Dean, whose once-controversial "50-state strategy" was hugely vindicated in November, said in a conference call with reporters Thursday that the political opportunity Democrats see in the West was what "tipped" the decision to Denver. New York was the other major contender.

"Victories by strong Democratic candidates [in the November elections] show how important the West is, and if we win the West we'll win the presidency," Dean said. He added that the choice of a Heartland state was also a chance to "show that Democratic party values are American values."

Plus, Colorado Confidential has a Q&A with Chris Gates, Co-Chair of the Host Committee, where they dish on why Denver is the best choice for Dems in '08 and what it means for the mile-high city. (Other than the fact that it's the best thing ever!)

For people who aren’t familiar with a national political convention, why should they be excited about this?

It’s the coolest thing that’s ever happened to Denver. It’s bigger than the Summit of the Eight. It’s bigger than the NBA All-Star Game. This will bring 10 days of national attention for Denver, and it’s an incredible opportunity to celebrate the West.

50-State Strategy: By the Numbers

Harvard University's Elaine Kamarck spent some time looking at the numbers and trying to assess the 50-State Strategy.

By the end of Dean's first year in office, the fifty state strategy was in full swing. The DNC was paying for 183 people working for state parties as part of their coordinated campaigns. Most of this work went on below the radar screen.

She then goes on to compare districts, money spent by other campaign committees and comes up with what we already know: that when you show up, work hard and ask people for their votes, you do better! Except she's got some numbers to help prove it.

It's worth a read - you might learn something new. For instance, Chris Bowers, my favorite netroots numbers guy, takes a look and says:

I admit I was unaware of the wide scope of the fifty-state strategy--183 paid organizers is quite a large amount. It is certainly a very expensive electoral and party-building strategy that shifts a huge amount of funds away from television advertising during the final few weeks of the campaign in selected, narrowly targeted districts. Assessing the effectiveness of this strategy with an objective eye thus becomes increasingly important, since tens of millions of campaign dollars are at stake, and both those within the Democratic party infrastructure who favor the fifty-state strategy, such as state party chairs, as well as those who oppose it, such as consultants for Democratic campaign committees, stand to either gain or lose a huge amount of money depending on the scale to which the strategy is implemented.

You can check out Chris' analysis, here and read the full paper, here.

Make Your Voice Heard: Write to Your Local Paper!

Governor Dean sent the following e-mail to Democratic activists across the country today. I hope you will join in our Letter to the Editor campaign and make sure our message is heard loud and clear in every city and town in the nation!

Dear Fellow Democrat,

Last night, George Bush plans announce that he wants to send tens of thousands more troops to Iraq.

The American people oppose it. The generals, both active-duty and retired, say that it won't help. But George Bush thinks he can do it anyway.

He's got another thing coming.

We believe the Democratic Congress must have the opportunity to review and approve the troop increase in Iraq.

Whether you agree with a policy of escalation or not, Congress's involvement is fundamental to our democratic process. The people's representatives must consent to sending troops and spending money -- particularly on something as controversial as sending tens of thousands more troops into the middle of a civil war.

Unlike the way we got into this war, America must have a real conversation about how to end it. Congress finally asserting its constitutional authority is the only way that conversation will happen.

The most effective thing you can do right now is send a letter to the editor of your local paper about escalation, and let them know that you demand a vote on any troop increase. Writing your letter to the editor is simple using our PartyBuilder advocacy tools. Just click here to get started:

http://www.democrats.org/escalation

Why should Congress have to be consulted?

Because this is a new level of engagement in Iraq, far different than anything the Congress has authorized to date.

Whatever you felt about that Iraq vote in 2002, it's impossible to deny that the situation now has deteriorated and the president's policies have continually failed. We now know that the administration's claims about WMD stockpiles and Saddam's ties to al Qaeda were false. We also that the regime we went in to depose is long gone.

We've been fighting in Iraq for longer than we fought in World War II. There is a full-blown civil war there. And Saddam is dead.

The American people, through their elected representatives, deserve a voice in the decision to send tens of thousands more troops there.

Please take a moment and use the PartyBuilder Letters to Editors tool to make your voice heard:

http://www.democrats.org/escalation

Congressional oversight may seem strange to the pundits who have gotten used to a Republican-led group that barely showed up to work and didn't take its constitutional responsibilities seriously.

But there's plenty of precedent for it.

In the 1970's Congress passed laws to stop Richard Nixon from expanding the Vietnam War into Cambodia and, later, to cap the number of personnel allowed in Vietnam in order to force the administration to wind down the war.

In the 1980's Congress required Ronald Reagan to seek explicit authorization if he planned to expand U.S. forces in Lebanon and capped the number of troops on permanent duty elsewhere in the world.

Congress has the constitutional duty to represent the people, and the new Democratic Congress is prepared to live up to that responsibility.

Please write a letter to your local paper now demanding a debate on Bush's escalation plan:

http://www.democrats.org/escalation

I opposed this war from the beginning. But no matter how you felt then, it's clear that the president's policy has failed.

Last year's elections were a referendum on Iraq, and the president lost.

Ignoring the lessons of history by increasing troop levels is not an answer to the problems in Iraq. Nor is blaming the military for the President's own mistakes an answer, or ignoring the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton Commission recommendations, including an emphasis on diplomacy. And ignoring the will of the American people is certainly not an answer.

The people made their voices heard, and if the president isn't going to listen, the Democratic Congress will.

Democrats in Congress heard the people loud and clear in 2006. In 2007, they are ready to act.

Let's join them.

Governor Howard Dean, M.D.

Convention is Announced

We're going to Denver for the 2008 convention!

From our press shop:

Citing the Denver host committee's strong bid and growing Democratic gains in the Rocky Mountain West, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean today announced that Denver will host the 2008 Democratic National Convention Monday, August 25 to Thursday, August 28.

We will post additional information in a few moments.

UPDATE: Here's the link to the full press release: http://www.democrats.org/a/conventiona/

Thursday Open Thread

Check out Cheers and Jeers this morning and find something to smile about.

January 10, 2007

Open Thread...

Go ahead and get it off your chest...

Governor Dean Responds to Bush Address On the War

"By choosing to escalate the crisis in Iraq, President Bush continues to ignore the lessons of history, ignore the advice of military experts, ignore the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group and the will of the American people. The President's plan will not make America more secure. It puts more American troops in the middle of a civil war and a situation reminiscent of Vietnam. Democrats in Congress have made it clear that they fully support our brave troops in combat, but will also hold the President accountable for a new direction in Iraq that turns the country over to the Iraqis and allows for our troops to come home. Our troops have already sacrificed enough for the President's mistakes."

Democratic Leaders: Escalating Our Military Involvement in Iraq Sends Precisely the Wrong Message

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and Senate Assistant Democratic Leader Richard Durbin released the following statement tonight on President Bush's address to the nation on the war in Iraq:

"Last November, the American people delivered a strong message of no confidence in the President's Iraq policy and clearly expressed their desire for a new direction. The President had an opportunity tonight to demonstrate that he understood the depth of the concern in the country, make a long overdue course correction, and articulate a clear mission for our engagement in Iraq. Instead, he chose to escalate our involvement in Iraq's civil war by proposing a substantial increase in the number of our forces there. This proposal endangers our national security by placing additional burdens on our already over-extended military thereby making it even more difficult to respond to other crises.

"While we all want to see a stable and peaceful Iraq, many current and former senior military leaders have made clear that sending more American combat troops does not advance that goal. Our troops have performed the difficult missions given to them in Iraq with great courage. The Congress and the American people will continue to support them and provide them with every resource they need. But our military forces deserve a policy commensurate with the sacrifices they have been asked to make. Regrettably, the President has not provided that tonight.

"Rather than escalating our involvement in Iraq by sending additional troops, we believe that a plan for the way forward in Iraq requires these elements:

• Shifting greater responsibility to the Iraqis for their security and transitioning the principal mission of our forces from combat to training, logistics, force protection, and counter terrorism operations;


• Beginning the phased redeployment of our forces in the next four to six months; and


• Implementing an aggressive diplomatic strategy, both within the region and beyond, which reflects the continuing obligation of the international community to help stabilize Iraq and which assists the Iraqis in achieving a sustainable political settlement, including by amending their constitution.

"Iraqi political leaders will not take the necessary steps to achieve a political resolution to the sectarian problems in their country until they understand that the U.S. commitment is not open-ended. Escalating our military involvement in Iraq sends precisely the wrong message and we oppose it.

"In the days ahead, Congress will exercise its Constitutional responsibilities by giving the President's latest proposal the scrutiny our troops and the American people expect. We will demand answers to the tough questions that have not been asked or answered to date. The American people want a change of course in Iraq. We intend to keep pressing President Bush to provide it."

The Old Plan vs. The "New" Plan

The first plan, from 2005. The second plan, the "new" one. It's in landscape format.

Multiple-Choice Mitt Strikes Again

Well that didn't take too long.

Just last week we looked at Mr. Multiple Choice and his record of saying whatever he thinks people want to hear.

Well he's done it again, but he's made the wrong choice this time.

In a statement released today, Mitt decides to support the President's plan for escalation by increasing troop levels with 5 more brigades and 2 more regiments of troops for Iraq.

Of course, this isn't his first time he's commented on Iraq. In the past he has claimed he couldn't weigh in because he was "still a Governor," but that was after he had already criticized the President's planning and troop strength.

Nice to know he's gonna stand by the President on his big night. I'm sure the President appreciates his new-found rubber-stamp rhetoric.

And it's also nice to know that he's finally taken a stand, even if it is against the advice of military and foreign policy experts and the wishes of the American people.

Bush Proposes Escalating The War In Iraq (Again)

At every stage, President Bush got it wrong on Iraq. At every stage, he offered more of the same while pretending there was change. And at every stage, our troops paid the price for his blunders.

As he prepares to address the nation tonight, with a plea for more troops to continue his failed strategy in Iraq, Democrats are sending a strong message that Congress will no longer serve as a rubber stamp. Nevertheless, President Bush appears to be ignoring the will of the people by attempting to go ahead with plans to escalate the war:

For a little over 20 minutes Wednesday night, Mr. Bush is to explain why a gradual buildup of about 20,000 additional U.S. troops, along with other steps expected to include pumping $1-billion (U.S.) into Iraq's economy, is the answer for a more than three-and-a-half-year-old war that has only gotten deadlier with no end in sight.

With the country descending further into a bloody civil war, the President has called to escalate the war yet again. The strategy is "more of the same" from this administration and the American people are tired of the same policies simply being given a new catchphrase.

"Mission Accomplished." "When Iraqi troops stand up, American forces will stand down." "We've turned the corner." "Stay the course." "Adapt to win."

And now, in an effort to use the catchphrase of the Iraq Study Group, while ignoring the substance of their report, he talks about "a new way forward." Rather than a real change in direction, a Bush administration official has already admitted it is "more of a political decision than a military one." The reason it is not a military decision may be that escalating the war is opposed by top military leaders.

Democrats have proposed a new direction in Iraq, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid writing to President Bush that "it is time to bring the war to a close." Congress will continue to exercise its Constitutional authority to hold the President accountable for a change of course that turns Iraq over to the Iraqis and allows for our troops to come home.

Stem Cell Research: Offering Hope and Promise

One of the items on the House's 100 Hours agenda, and one of the Senate's first 10 bills of the 110th Congress, is to increase funding for embryonic stem cell research, legislation that both chambers passed in 2006, but was then vetoed by the President.

The Bush Administration and their cronies continue to mislead the public about the truth behind this science, carving out a policy that is based on the influence of extreme religious right-wing conservative minority, rather than the facts.

Earlier this week, Tony Snow, the Administration's spokesperson claimed:

"The vast majority of breakthroughs right now, virtually all, have involved those other than embryonic stem cells.”

That is a dangerously false claim. A large majority of the American people support this research, and Democrats are committed to crafting public policy based on sound science, not extreme ideology during the 110th Congress.

ThinkProgress compiled a list of the medical breakthroughs that have been made recently as a result of life-saving embryonic stem cell research, breakthroughs with the potential to cure diseases that effect millions of Americans, from those suffering from AIDS to diabetes.

Check out the list, here.

Who Supports Escalation?

The Troops? Nope. According to a Military Times Poll, a minority -- only 38% -- of American troops think there should be a greater number of troops than there are now.

The Commanders? Nope. General John Abizaid told Congress: "I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the corps commander, General Dempsey, we all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American Troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no."

The Joint Chiefs of Staff? Nope. According to the Washington Post, they are in unanimous disagreement with the White House when it comes to escalating the war, warning that it "could give an enormous edge to virtually all the armed factions in Iraq ... without giving an enduring boost to the U.S military mission or to the Iraqi army."

The Iraq Study Group? Nope. The bipartisan Iraq Study Group, headed by Bush family adviser James Baker, recommended that we begin to withdraw combat troops -- "a central recommendation Bush apparently has chosen to ignore."

The American public? Nope. A recent Gallup Poll showed that only a miniscule 12-percent of Americans favor a "send more troops" alternative.

Republicans? Nope. Already the Associated Press reported that Senate Republicans Richard Lugar and Arlen Specter "bucked the White House" and "expressed skepticism" about adding more troops to Iraq. Senator Chuck Hagel said he was "absolutely opposed," likening it to Alice in Wonderland. Even right-wing columnist Robert Novak called prominent Republicans "confused and disturbed" about the escalation policy. He also warned that senior Republican senators "are trying to get word to the president" that troop escalation "would be dead on arrival in Congress."

President Bush? Nope. A year and a half ago, President Bush warned that "sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging more Iraqis to take the lead" and "suggest that we intend to stay forever."

It's About Time!

Back in July I watched the Republican-controlled Congress goad House Democrats into a vote on the minimum wage, holding the House hostage by pairing an increase in the minimum wage with a tax cut for the most obscenely wealthy Americans in the country. It was a shameful display, a distortion of the issue at hand and the kind of stunt the American people soundly rejected by voting the GOP out of office in November.

The day after witnessing this stunt, I wrote:

A Democratic Congress will enact a real increase in the minimum wage, one that will pass the Senate and reward hard-working Americans with the raise that they deserve.

Well that time has come. Today, the House takes up the bill to increase the minimum wage and finally give hard-working Americans the raise they deserve:

Tackling a top priority, House Democrats pushed a $2.10 an hour increase in the federal minimum wage toward passage Wednesday, calling it only a partial restoration of purchasing power for America's lowest-paid workers.

As their second bill since taking control of Congress, the Democratic-written legislation would raise the federal wage floor from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour in three steps over 26 months. The federal wage hasn't budged for 10 years...The Senate is expected to move quickly - perhaps in the next few weeks, on a similar bill.

For 10 years, Congress has refused to raise the minimum wage (although they have had no problem raising their own pay!). The last raise passed Congress under the Clinton Administration.

"For 10 years the lowest-paid Americans have been frozen out. They have been working at a federal poverty wage, not a federal minimum wage," said Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., author of the legislation.

You can check out some facts on the minimum wage increase, here.

For instance, did you know:

• Raising the minimum wage would provide an additional $4,400/year for a family of three, equaling 15 months of groceries, or over two years of health care - helping them to keep up with rising costs.
• Nearly 13 million people would likely benefit from the increase - 5.6 million directly and 7.4 million indirectly. This includes 7.7 million women, 3.4 million parents, and 4.7 million people of color.
• It is wrong to have millions of Americans working full-time and year-round and still living in poverty. At $5.15 an hour, a full-time minimum wage worker brings home $10,712 a year -nearly $6,000 below the poverty level for a family of three.
• A minimum wage increase is particularly important at a time when America's families have seen their real income drop by almost $1,300 since 2000, while the costs of health insurance, gasoline, home heating, and attending college have increased by almost $5,000 annually. [Government Reform, 9/21/06]
• The minimum wage has not increased in more than nine years - the longest period in the history of the law. During that time, Members of Congress have received a $31,600 pay raise. The real value of the minimum wage has plummeted to its lowest level in 51 years. [Economic Policy Institute, 6/06]
• An average CEO earns more before lunchtime in one day than a minimum wage worker earns all year. [EPI, 6/2706]

You can read the full text of the legislation, here.

Play It Again, Sam

AP:

President Bush's new plan for Iraq sounds a lot like his old one. Send in more troops, set goals for the Iraqi government and assure Americans it's better to wage war there than here. And now the U.S. military is back in Somalia, too, once again attacking suspected terrorist targets. Bush's challenge in Iraq: show what's different now.

The plan the president will outline to the nation Wednesday night is the latest repackaging of a program that's been wrapped and rewrapped many times.

The words are AP's, the emphasis is mine.

How many times are we going to play this same old tune? The Administration has tried this, over and over again, wrapped up with shiny packaging, nifty names and snappy slogans. And it has failed. The violence in Iraq has gotten worse, and as the President tries to sell us the same old plan again, consider the fact that he is going this road alone - against the advice of the military commanders he used to claim to rely on in the past.

Could it be that the military commanders see what the President can not? That this new version of "stay the course" is not a strategy or a solution? Could it be that they know that doing the same thing over again and expecting different results is the very definition of insanity?

Let's look back at the history of Iraq "surges":

• Operation Together Forward, (June-October 2006): In June the Bush administration announced a new plan for securing Baghdad by increasing the presence of Iraqi Security Forces. That plan failed, so in July the White House announced that additional American troops would be sent into Baghdad. By October, a U.S. military spokesman, Gen. William Caldwell, acknowledged that the operation and troop increase was a failure and had "not met our overall expectations of sustaining a reduction in the levels of violence." [CNN, 12/19/06. Washington Post, 7/26/06. Brookings Institution, 12/21/06.]
• Elections and Constitutional Referendum (September-December 2005): In the fall of 2005 the Bush administration increased troop levels by 22,000, making a total of 160,000 American troops in Iraq around the constitutional referendum and parliamentary elections. While the elections went off without major violence these escalations had little long-term impact on quelling sectarian violence or attacks on American troops. [Brookings Institution, 12/21/06. www.icasualties.org]
• Constitutional Elections and Fallujah (November 2004-March 2005): As part of an effort to improve counterinsurgency operations after the Fallujah offensive in November 2004 and to increase security before the January 2005 constitutional elections U.S. forces were increased by 12,000 to 150,000. Again there was no long-term security impact. [Brookings Institution, 12/21/06. New York Times, 12/2/04.]


• Massive Troop Rotations (December 2003-April 2004): As part of a massive rotation of 250,000 troops in the winter and spring of 2004, troop levels in Iraq were raised from 122,000 to 137,000. Yet, the increase did nothing to prevent Muqtada al-Sadr's Najaf uprising and April of 2004 was the second deadliest month for American forces. [Brookings Institution, 12/21/06. www.icasualties.org. USA Today, 3/4/04]

There is no record of success here. Instead, there is an ever-increasing loss of life and expansion of violence. The Iraq Study Group, a group Bush himself commissioned, proposed exactly the opposite of an escalation:

The bipartisan Iraq Study Group, led by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton, called for beginning to withdraw combat troops - a central recommendation Bush apparently has chosen to ignore.

So he's ignoring the military commanders, his own advisers, the Congress, the Senate and the American people. The President wants to make our troops and their families sacrifice even more for his flawed policies - policies that will not make American more secure, but will place an additional burden on our troops and their families. Troops and families who have already sacrificed enough for his myriad of mistakes and stubborn insistence to "Stay the Course".

Democrats will not stand by and allow the President to continue down this path. As Speaker Pelosi said on Sunday, Congress will use their constitutional authority of oversight to question the President about Iraq, and force him to justify any proposed escalation of forces.

And, as Senator Reid said, it's time to bring our troops home...

"We want to do everything we can to help Iraq succeed in the future but, like many of our senior military leaders, we do not believe that adding more U.S. combat troops contributes to success. They, like us, believe there is no purely military solution in Iraq. There is only a political solution."

"Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain."

The News on Iraq

In less than 12 hours the President is going to address the nation from the White House and talk about the situation in Iraq. All indications are that he is going to try and convince the American people to support an escalation in the war by increasing the number of troops on the ground in Iraq by at least 20,000. This comes at a time when the majority of Americans disapprove of sending more troops and only a quarter of Americans approve of the way the President is handling the current situation.

If you take a look at the headlines in the major newspapers across the country today, it's all right there in black and white. Here's a sample:

• The Washington Post: With Iraq Speech, Bush to Pull Away From His Generals

  When President Bush goes before the American people tonight to outline his new strategy for Iraq, he will be doing something he has avoided since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003: ordering his top military brass to take action they initially resisted and advised against.

• The L.A. Times: Bush to Request More Troops:
  

  President Bush spent hours Tuesday practicing in front of cameras, preparing to make his case for increasing the U.S. military commitment in Iraq in a prime-time address to the nation tonight, even as congressional Democrats readied legislation to block any increase in the number of troops.

• The Boston Globe: Surge Could Push Troops to the Breaking Point:

  The Bush Administration's proposal to send an additional 20,000 troops to join the 152,000 already in Iraq is is unlikely to bring significant improvement to the situation in Iraq, but it is certain to further damage the already beleaguered US ground forces. The surge will push America's all-volunteer force into uncharted territory, and it is not clear how well the troops or the military as an institution can withstand the strain.

• The New York Times: Bush’s Troop-Increase Plan Is Expected to Draw Six Guard Brigades to Iraq:
  

  President Bush’s plan to increase troop levels in Iraq is expected to require the Army eventually to send as many as six National Guard combat brigades to Iraq, beginning in 2008.

  The increased demand on the National Guard in coming years is a likely byproduct of Mr. Bush’s decision, expected to be announced in a speech Wednesday night, to send five active-duty combat brigades, or about 20,000 troops, to Iraq, starting at the end of this month, according to current and former officials.

Wednesday Open Thread

Chat away...

January 9, 2007

Tell Me Another One, Tony...

Tony Snow was on a roll today. ThinkProgress dissects another one of his ridiculous assertions:

In today’s press briefing, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow tried to distance President Bush from his infamous “Mission Accomplished” speech, claiming that Bush said “just the opposite” of “Mission Accomplished”:

I think the public ought to just listen to what the president has to say. You know that the mission accomplished banner was put up by members of the USS Abraham Lincoln, and the president, on that very speech, said just the opposite, didn’t he?

For that May 1, 2003, Bush stood in front of a large banner that read, “Mission Accomplished.” In the opening of his speech, he declared, “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.” He called the “battle of Iraq” a “victory.” In his radio address shortly after the speech, he boasted, “I delivered good news to the men and women who fought in the cause of freedom: their mission is complete and major combat operations in Iraq have ended.”

Additionally, as Bob Woodward reported in October, then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had to pressure the White House to take out of the speech the actual phrase “Mission Accomplished,” but he couldn’t “get the sign down.”

In Oct. 2003, then-White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan admitted that the White House — not members of USS Lincoln — had “take[n] care of the production of the banner.”

Democrats Ending Republican Reign of Pork Barrel Spending Sprees

Via WaPo:

The House voted last week to shine a spotlight into the murky world of import-tariff suspensions, a little-known form of special-interest legislation that has cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue.

The House overwhelmingly approved a bill that, for the first time, officially equates tariff suspensions with a better-known variety of legislative pork, the congressional earmark. The new rules require public disclosure of each measure's sponsor, purpose and cost whenever lawmakers slip one into legislation.

The rules also require that congressional sponsors identify each person or corporation "reasonably anticipated to benefit" from the breaks on import taxes.

The rules direct sponsoring lawmakers to certify that they and their spouses have no financial stake in the tax breaks, and they ban the practice of trading provisions for members' votes.

In one of the first official acts of the new Democratic majority, the House approved the rule changes 280 to 152. Some analysts predicted the changes would encourage increased scrutiny of a practice that, a Washington Post study found, often benefits large foreign-based corporations.

Nice to know the Republican-led Congress was keen on lining the pockets, not just of American corporations, but foreign businesses too, instead of looking out for the American taxpayer.

It's no wonder they got fired.

In fact. A GOPer said so himself, crazy Georgia Rep. Jack Kingston (the one who doesn't want to work more than a few days a week!):

"This should be one more lesson to my party: We were fired with cause. We got lazy, we got too cozy with K Street, and this is an example where flipping the majority cleans out the closet. I very reluctantly give kudos to the majority."

Another Reason A Democratic Majority Rocks? Judges

Via AP:

In a concession to the Senate's new Democratic majority, four of President Bush's appeals court appointees have asked to have their nominations withdrawn, Republican officials said Tuesday.

These officials said that William Haynes, William Myers and Terrence Boyle had all decided to abandon their quest for confirmation. Another nominee, Mike Wallace, let it be known last month that he, too, had asked Bush to withdraw his nomination.

Another benefit of our new majorities? Getting to say a loud "NO!" to extreme right-wing conservative nominees, the kind that the administration has happily foisted upon the American people for the past 6 years.

Like these four:

Haynes is the Pentagon's top lawyer, and was an architect of the Bush's now-abandoned policy toward treatment of detainees in the war on terror. He had been tapped for the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Boyle is a federal judge in North Carolina, and his appointment to the
4th Circuit provoked opposition from Democrats who cited his rulings
in civil rights and disability cases, as well as his higher-than-average reversal rate by higher courts.

Myers, nominated to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, sparked
opposition from environmentalist organizations and their allies among Senate Democrats.

Wallace's appointment to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals drew
opposition from Democrats, civil rights groups and the American Bar
Association.

Stacking the courts with conservative justices with an extreme agenda is out of the question with Democrats in charge, and that means American courts may actually get qualified justices instead of GOP puppets.

And he says it with a straight face...

From today's briefing:

Q: Tony, we haven't talked about Jack Abramoff in a long time, and there's a new photo showing him with the President.

MR. SNOW: The President said he didn't know Abramoff, wasn't buds, and my guess is there are plenty of photos around town with Jack Abramoff and Democrats and Republicans.

Q: What about the change in interpreting entrance records to the White House as being the property of the White House and not of the Secret Service?

MR. SNOW: That is a fairly abstruse issue, and I will see if I can get you guidance from the Office of Legal Counsel. I don't want to tap dance around that. I'll try and get you a straight answer.

Tony Snow wouldn't know a straight answer if it hit him in the face.

Could he be any more ridiculous?

Speaker Pelosi Starts the Clock

The First 100 Hours have begun, as House Democrats opened the floor for legislation earlier today.

Check out the live version, here.

Senator Kennedy: Escalation - "It's Not His Decision"

Senator Kennedy will introduce legislation today that will prevent the President from escalating the war in Iraq without first justifying such a decision and getting Congressional approval.

In a blog post on DailyKos he explains:

I am on my way to the National Press Club in Washington in a few minutes to speak about a new bill. If passed, it will prohibit escalation in Iraq without express Congressional approval of a plan and budget.

President Bush owes the American people a clear explanation about what he's trying to accomplish in Iraq, and that's why I'm introducing legislation that will force him to explain himself.

In October 2002, Members of Congress authorized a war against the regime of Saddam Hussein, not to send our troops into a civil war. I voted against that resolution and feel an escalation of this war only compounds the original mistake of going in the first place.

The American people know, and our generals agree, that a military escalation in Iraq would not strengthen our national security – instead it would further weaken it by enabling the Iraqis to avoid taking responsibility for their own future. More than 3,000 American soldiers have died in Iraq and more than 22,000 have been wounded. It’s time to get this right.

The days of unchecked power are over for the White House. This is going to be a wake up call for "the decider".

Senator Kennedy:

Some have claimed that the president has the authority to escalate this war without the consent of House and Senate. They dismiss the possibility that Congress has a role to play stopping this president from leading us further into the quicksand in Iraq.

That may have been true when Republicans were in charge, but people elected Democrats to show some backbone. Congress is the voice of the American people, and it’s time those voices are heard in this debate.

The President and Inmate No. 27593-112

CREW photo the White House wants to hide.

This is the kind of photo the White House has refused to release. A photo showing inmate no. 27593-112, Jack Abramoff, with the President. At a pricey fundraiser. When that inmate is incarcerated for using his fundraising prowess, expensive gifts and influence in ways that are illegal. When the President's advisers and GOP pals have denied knowing him. When the White House has gone to court to keep photos like these, visitor logs and notes from meetings super secret.

As CREW said, this is the photo they don't want you to see.

Tuesday Morning Open Thread

To Ohio State fans nationwide: I'm so sorry.

Congrats go to the University of Florida for a horrific/impressive championship win last night. For those of us who have been burned by Florida in a title game (UCLA and Ohio State), today is an incredibly dreary day.

This is an open thread...

January 8, 2007

South Carolina to Host First Presidential Debate

Via MSNBC:

Iowa has the pleasure of being the first nominating contest of the 2008 presidential race, but it's South Carolina that gets the race's first major debate. We are pleased to announce that MSNBC and the South Carolina Democratic Party will host the first presidential primary debate on April 26 from South Carolina State University. The debate, which will air from 7:00 pm to 8:30 pm ET on MSNBC, will also be carried on three NBC affiliates in South Carolina. MSNBC will also carry extensive political coverage leading up to the debate including a debate preview and a special edition of Hardball which will air live from the university.

In a statement, South Carolina State Democratic Party Chairman Joe Erwin expressed his enthusiasm at having the debate at the alma mater of South Carolina's own Rep. Jim Clyburn, who serves as majority whip. “Having worked closely with the top-notch NBC News team in 2004 for the Presidential primary and debate, we know just what kinds of results they can produce when it comes for viewership, voter education and voter participation," Erwin said. "Democratic candidates can rest assured that their campaign messages will be heard by millions of South Carolina voters and NBC viewers across the country," he added.

McCain Hires Another Republican Liar

McCain has hired Trey Walker to manage his campaign in South Carolina. Walker, who admired the tactics used against McCain in 2000, telling a local South Carolina newspaper:

"I think we were surprised by just how negative they went," said Trey Walker, national field director for McCain. "They made a conscientious effort to demonize John McCain among conservatives and it worked. But you've got to give them credit. Their backs were against the wall. It was a life-or-death situation for them. The means justified the end."

Well it seems he learned from their example. He was subsequently investigated for election fraud himself in 2003.

Walker joins Terry Nelson, who Matt summed up perfectly:

Nelson was an unindicted co-conspirator in the TRMPAC scandal as a key point of contact between Tom Delay and the RNC. He was James Tobin's boss during the 2002 New Hampshire phone-jamming scandal, for which Tobin was convicted. He also worked at the head of opposition research for the NRCC this cycle, where robocalls from Republicans pretending to be Democrats were the norm all over the country. Nelson also produced the racist bimbo ad against Harold Ford.

And Richard Quinn, a man who opposed creating MLK Day and supported David Duke, another member of Team McCain:

"What better way to reject politics as usual than to elect a maverick like David Duke? What better way to tweak the nose of the establishment?"

Then there is Jill Hazelbaker - Walker's dirty tactics soul mate and McCain's New Hampshire spokesperson. Hazelbaker recently lied about pretending to be a Democratic activist in blog posts while working for GOP Senate candidate in New Jersey.

Walker committed a similar offense in 2002 when he sent thousands of activists an e-mail about his GOP opponent using the name of one of the opponent's own consultants. He later called it "a harmless practical joke."

Sounds like McCain has a team he can be proud of.

Update: Media Matters has more.

Speaker Pelosi to President Bush: We Want to See a Plan

Speaker Pelosi was on Face the Nation this weekend (Video, here). She said Congress ready to use their constitutional authority of oversight to question the President about Iraq, and force him to justify his spending on any proposed escalation of forces.

Why? Well, let's be honest. His escalation plan is nothing more than "Stay the Course" with additional troops. It is not a strategy and it is not a real plan. It has been tried before and it has failed before. It is opposed by top military leaders, the President's own advisers and the majority of the American people. In November Americans proved with the power of the vote that they wanted a new direction for America, and for the war in Iraq. Yet the President refuses to listen.

Democrats, Republicans, and the bipartisan Iraq Study Group have all offered President Bush a roadmap to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis, begin the phased redeployment of American troops, and end our open-ended commitment to Iraq. Yet the President refuses to listen.

Take this Reuters article:

Leaders of the new Democratic-controlled Congress are vowing to fight it. An elite panel on Iraq has shown little enthusiasm for it. And even some military commanders are deeply skeptical about it.

Still, President George W. Bush is expected to shrug off those concerns and unveil plans to send more troops to Iraq, setting the stage for the most intense debate on the war since the U.S.-led invasion almost four years ago.

Bush is to make a televised address to Americans on his new Iraq plan on Wednesday at 9 p.m. (0200 GMT).

By going ahead with a troop increase, Bush is again proclaiming himself the "decider" as he tries to reassert his relevance after coming out on the losing end of a congressional power shift, analysts say.

Though weakened by his Republican Party's defeat in November's elections, he seems to be staking out his turf for continuing to prosecute an increasingly unpopular war that is likely to define his presidential legacy.

"He's still commander-in-chief and he wants to do it his way," said Michael McFaul, a foreign policy expert at the Hoover Institution. "But it's too little, too late."

...

Most expect him instead to dig in his heels against congressional Democrats' attempts to force him to set an exit strategy, mindful that they are unlikely to resort to cutting off funding to the troops.

"This is a president who doesn't change his mind easily, and he's decided to tough it out in Iraq to the bitter end, even if it makes no sense," said Joseph Cirincione of the Center for American Progress, a liberal Washington think tank.

Most days I feel like the President must be like a 5 year old child, standing on the furniture, jumping up and down, screaming that he's the boss while his parents look on in stunned disbelief. When the parents try to reason with the child, he puts his hands over his ears and starts yelling, "I can't hear you..."

Title Game Open Thread

The Washington Post declares Florida must stop the pass to win tonight's national championship game against Ohio State. Whatever. Ohio State will win in a blow out.

This is an open thread...

January 6, 2007

Weekend Open Thread

Enjoy!

January 5, 2007

What did they say? What did they do?

Wondering what the Members were saying as they cast their votes for Speaker Pelosi? So were we! C-Span didn't carry the audio during the roll call, but here, from the press coverage, is a sampling of what the some of the Members did or said as they cast this history-making vote:

Bobby Rush (D-IL)

"Just as the biblical Esther was called to save the nation, I cast my vote for another woman called for such times as these."

Chaka Fattah (D-PA)

"On behalf of my three daughters, Nancy Pelosi."

Mazie Hirono (D-HI)

Congresswoman Hirono cast her vote for Pelosi in memory of the late Rep. Patsy Mink who, years ago, predicted that Pelosi would one day become Speaker.

Rosa DeLauro (D-CT)

"The first woman, a daughter of Italy, Pelosi."

Sam Farr (D-CA)

"As a native of San Francisco, Nancy Pelosi."

Jerry McNerney (D-CA)

"It is my pleasure to cast my first vote in this House for Nancy Pelosi."

Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX)

"Today we make history for a new America. Enthusiastically for Nancy Pelosi."

Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL)

"In the name of Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth and Rosa Parks, and in the name of Jesus, Nancy Pelosi."

Linda Sanchez (D-CA)

"Por el poder de la mujer, Nancy Pelosi." (By the power of the woman, Nancy Pelosi.)

Loretta Sanchez (D-CA)

"For the empowerment of all women in the world, and individually because you really deserve it, Nancy Pelosi."

Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH)

Congresswoman Tubbs Jones cast her vote for Nancy Pelosi on behalf of the Ohio State Buckeyes. Then she did a jig that appeared to be the cabbage patch.

Steny Hoyer (D-MD)

"Maryland's favorite daughter, Nancy D'Alesandro Pelosi, California's pride."

John Lewis (D-GA)

"On this historic day when the eyes of the nation are upon us and on our history, I am very proud to cast my vote for the young lady from California, Nancy Pelosi."

Parag Mehta is the Director of Training for the Democratic Party.

Fierce Opposition to Iraq Escalation

Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid sent a letter to President Bush calling on him to reject plans to escalate the civil war with additional troops and stating "it is time to begin to move our forces out of Iraq..."

Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed. Like many current and former military leaders, we believe that trying again would be a serious mistake. They, like us, believe there is no purely military solution in Iraq. There is only a political solution. Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain. And it would undermine our efforts to get the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. We are well past the point of more troops for Iraq.

The letter comes in advance of plans by President Bush to address the nation. As the New York Times points out, the president is "encountering fierce opposition from the newly empowered Democratic leadership." He is also facing criticism from Democrats like Senator Russ Feingold, who said in a statement that "We should be bringing our troops out of Iraq, not the other way around."

Instead of escalation, Pelosi and Reid propose in the letter a phased redeployment of our forces over the next four to six months in addition to a renewed diplomatic strategy "to help the Iraqis agree to a sustainable political settlement."

The Bush/McCain war escalation plan comes as U.S. fatalities over the course of the war in Iraq pass 3,000, along with the deadliest month of the war in over two years.

The full letter after the jump.

Keep reading "Fierce Opposition to Iraq Escalation"

Filling in the Blanks...

In a campaign document leaked to the New York Daily News the Guiliani camp looks inward:

One page cites the explicit concern that he might "drop out of [the] race" as a consequence of his potentially "insurmountable" personal and political vulnerabilities.

On the same page is a list of the candidate's central problems in bullet-point form: his private sector business; disgraced former aide Bernard Kerik; his third wife, Judith Nathan Giuliani; "social issues," on which is he is more liberal than most Republicans, and his former wife Donna Hanover.

The concerns appear to be listed as issues for Giuliani law partner Pat Oxford to address and are followed by the central question of the campaign:

Are there "prob[lem]s that are insurmount[able]?" it asks, adding, "Has anyone reviewed with RWG?" Giuliani, whose middle name is William, is referred to throughout the document by his initials.

"All will come out - in worst light," the memo continues. "$100 million against us on this stuff."

So what's Rudy do about these "issues"? Is he honest about where he stands and who he stands with? Apparently not. At least not online. The "post no evil, see no evil, read no evil" campaign strategy seems to be more his style:

The other way to look at these matters is, don’t look at them. That is the Web site’s way.

For instance, it liberally features Judith Nathan, Mr. Giuliani’s current wife, providing a polished version of her career, accompanied by two flattering photographs.

Nowhere to be found on the site is even a mention of Ms. Hanover, married to Mr. Giuliani for 18 years and the mother of his two children. They divorced in 2002 after Mr. Giuliani announced to a stunned press corps — without telling Ms. Hanover first — that the couple was splitting up.

The Web site doesn’t mention Mr. Giuliani’s first wife either, Regina Peruggi.

It does not mention the former mayor’s two children, Andrew and Caroline.

It does not mention Mr. Kerik, the disgraced former police commissioner who would have been the secretary of homeland security today if his messy past hadn’t caught up with him.

It does not mention Amadou Diallo, the unarmed West African immigrant whose death in 1999 in a fusillade of 41 police bullets was one of the most wrenching episodes of the Giuliani mayoralty.

The Web site does not cite the social issues referred to in the leaked document either — his support for abortion rights, gay rights and gun control, for instance — three positions that are not popular with many conservative Republicans. The party’s base may not be familiar yet with the Giuliani record before his leadership in the aftermath of Sept. 11 brought him national acclaim.

As many political analysts have frequently pointed out, his record and conduct before the terrorist attack is not well known to those beyond the borders of New York City, and as a private citizen for the last five years, he hasn’t had to illuminate the public about his position on anything from Iraq to global warming, unless he has chosen to.

The site won’t fill in the blanks...

Color me stunned.

Watch It!: Governor Dean on PoliticsTV

Cleaning Up After the GOP

House Democrats wasted no time cleaning up Washington after numerous Republican scandals with "the broadest ethics and lobbying revision since the Watergate era." Last night, after the new Congress was sworn in and Speaker Pelosi took the gavel, the House overwhelmingly passed strong lobbying reform meant to break unethical ties between lawmakers and lobbyists, as the Washington Post reports:

The changes would prohibit House members or employees from knowingly accepting gifts or travel from a registered lobbyist, foreign agent or lobbyist's client. Lawmakers could no longer fly on corporate jets. In addition, congressional travel financed by outside groups would have to be approved in advance by the House ethics committee and immediately disclosed to the public.

The measures were approved 430 to 1, with only Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) voting against it. This was a remarkable change considering that House Republicans could barely pass a far weaker measure last May and ultimately did not enact any measure because they could not reach agreement with the Senate. But voters in November identified corruption as one of their primary concerns, and the House responded yesterday.

Those voters identified corruption as such a problem due to a Republican Congress famous for its "culture of corruption," from Tom DeLay to Duke Cunningham. The GOP failed to clean up their own mess and paid a heavy price for it in November. The sense of urgency Democrats are displaying on this issue shows a commitment to honest and open government.

And in the Senate, listed as number one for Senate Democrats' First Ten Bills of the 110th Congress is "Ethics reform, to clean up Congress so the government can get back to serving the American people."

Another Signing Statement - Postmarked December 20th

President Bush sure does like those signing statements. I think he likes 'em even more when no one picks up on what exactly he is doing...

Via WaPo:

President Bush signed a little-noticed statement last month asserting the authority to open U.S. mail without judicial warrants in emergencies or foreign intelligence cases, prompting warnings yesterday from Democrats and privacy advocates that the administration is attempting to circumvent legal restrictions on its powers.

A "signing statement" attached to a postal reform bill on Dec. 20 says the Bush administration "shall construe" a section of that law to allow the opening of sealed mail to protect life, guard against hazardous materials or conduct "physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection."

...Sharp limits have been placed on the government's power to open mail since the 1970s, when a congressional committee investigating abuses found that, for three decades, the CIA and FBI had illegally opened hundreds of thousands of pieces of U.S. mail. Among the targets were "large numbers of American dissidents, including those who challenged the condition of racial minorities and those who opposed the war in Vietnam," according to a report by the Senate panel, known as the Church committee. Also surveilled was "the mail of Senators, Congressmen, journalists, businessmen, and even a Presidential candidate," the report said.

Wait for it...Wait for it...

There is it! The equivocating, excuses, clarifications and the "oh-it's-no-big-deal" defense courtesy of Tony Snow:

"This is not a change in law, this is not new, it is not . . . a sweeping new power by the president," spokesman Tony Snow told reporters. "It is, in fact, merely a statement of present law and present authorities granted to the president of the United States."

Not everyone sees things quite like that though:

"The administration is playing games about warrants," Martin said. "If they are not claiming new powers, then why did they need to issue a signing statement?"

The latest statement caused a small ruckus on Capitol Hill yesterday just as Democrats were taking control of Congress. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, called the statement a "last-minute, irregular and unauthorized reinterpretation of a duly passed law."

For some reason I feel like the President isn't going to respond well to a Democratic Congress that understands the power of oversight and accepts that responsibility of checks and balances.

TGIF Open Thread

Chat away...

January 4, 2007

Delivery for the Speaker

Armed with your wishes of congratulations, and just minutes after Speaker Pelosi finished her historic remarks, DNC staffers gathered together outside the building and walked up the Hill to the Capitol.

DNC Staff ready to deliver your remarks!

As we entered the Capitol we spotted many newly sworn-in Members of Congress and their families as they stood in a line that wrapped along the Capitol's corridors (Waiting to get their ceremonial swearing-in photos). Some were just leaving the gallery, while others were walking around the Capitol Grounds, likely on their way to their new offices or possibly to receptions to celebrate the newly sworn-in 110th Congress.

DNC Secretary, Alice Germond, also from California (like our new Speaker), made the trip with us to deliver our messages to Speaker Pelosi. We ran into Governor Dean as he was on his way out of the Capitol and we were searching for the right stairwell. Once we found the Speaker's suite of offices, Alice Germond made the official delivery of our messages. We then got a tour of the Speaker's suite and took a look at the new view of Washington...from the balcony of the office of the Speaker of the House!

Alice delivers your remarks to Speaker Pelosi

It was breathtaking to see the city laid out before us like that, to know we were in the literal center of our nation's government, and to know that we, the Democratic Party, had the power to change America for the better.

As we were leaving the Speaker's offices we happened to run into Christine Pelosi, one of Speaker Pelosi's daughters, and a DNC member. We showed her some of the remarks that had been sent in. She was very gracious and said she looked forward to looking at them with her mother.

Today was a great day to be a woman, but an even better day to be a Democratic woman and to know that it is our Party that made this day happen.

Shattering the Marble Ceiling

"This is an historic moment - for the Congress, and for the women of this country. It is a moment for which we have waited more than 200 years. Never losing faith, we waited through the many years of struggle to achieve our rights. But women weren't just waiting; women were working. Never losing faith, we worked to redeem the promise of America, that all men and women are created equal. For our daughters and granddaughters, today we have broken the marble ceiling. For our daughters and our granddaughters, today the sky is the limit - anything is possible."
- Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Full remarks after the jump...

Keep reading "Shattering the Marble Ceiling"

It's Official

Nancy Pelosi has been elected the Speaker of the House. The House is going wild - the Democratic Caucus loudly cheering. It's a great day to be a Democrat and an even better day to be a Democratic woman.

The Senate Agenda

Senator Reid's First 10 Bills of 2007:

Senate Democrats' First Ten Bills of the 110th Congress

1. Ethics reform, to clean up Congress so the government can get back to serving the American people.
2. Raising the minimum wage, to give millions of American families an opportunity to achieve the American Dream.
3. Medicare Prescription Drug program reform, to save seniors, the disabled, and American taxpayers money.
4. Acting on the 9/11 Commission Recommendations, to fully secure our ports and borders and ensure that our first responders have the resources they need to keep America safe.
5. Funding stem cell research, to open the promise of life-saving cures and treatments.
6. Energy reform, to address global warming and put America on a path to energy independence.
7. Easing the financial burden of college tuition, to increase accessibility for hardworking students and their families.
8. Strengthening and rebuilding America's military, to ensure the American people get the real security they deserve.
9. Comprehensive immigration reform, to fix America's broken immigration system.
10. Pay-as-you-go legislation, so that Congress has to cover its costs just like American families do.

Majority Leader Reid

It's official...

Senator Reid asks, "How can we achieve progress?"

Senator Reid answers, "By doing things differently."

We are headed in a new direction my friends.

Congratulating Speaker Pelosi

Thousands of you signed the virtual card for Speaker Pelosi
- we printed them out to deliver to her office this afternoon
after she gets the gavel for the first time.

Swearing-In Day Open Thread

In a few hours we will officially have the first female Speaker of the House. We'll have two majorities. And we'll finally get to work moving America in a new direction.

The sun is shining brightly on Washington today. It's going to be a great day.

I'll be blogging from the Capitol today.

This is an open thread...

January 3, 2007

The Drapes Are Measured

"I know the other side is already dancing in the end zone, except they haven't made the end zone yet. They're up there in Washington already kind of picking out their offices and measuring the drapes."
-George W. Bush, October 26, 2006

With the new Congress getting sworn-in tomorrow, thankfully the drapes were already measured; it means we get to go straight to work.

In the House of Representatives, Democrats have a bold agenda ahead. Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi will provide open government and honest leadership, require responsible pay-as-you-go budgeting, implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations, raising the minimum wage, require Medicare to negotiate for lower drug prices, cut the interest rates on student loans, and repeal big oil subsidies.

In the Senate, incoming Majority Leader Harry Reid will work with the Democratic majority to clean up the mess left behind by the irresponsible Republicans and fight for a new direction for America.

Tomorrow we will celebrate the first Democratic majority in twelve years, but instead of simply "dancing in the end zone," we're going to get this country back on track.

Tea for Two - A Tribute to Women's Leadership

Speaker-elect Pelosi is joined on stage by female Members of Congress.

Madeline, age 8, Speaker-elect Pelosi's
eldest granddaughter, offers brief remarks.

We just returned from the Women's Tea to honor Speaker-Elect Nancy Pelosi. What a wonderful opportunity to celebrate this moment in our history with so many notable women leaders! Female Members of Congress mingled with women leaders from the DNC, the Federation of Democratic Women, and the Women's Leadership Forum - among many others.

Two special young women spoke at the event, which honored another special Democratic woman as well, Ann Richards. Generations of Democratic women paid tribute to Governor Richards, and Lilly, the 19-yr old granddaughter of the late Governor, spoke about the wonderful spirit and leadership of her grandmother. Then, Madeline, the 8-yr old granddaughter of Speaker-elect Pelosi, spoke about what she hopes for our country now that her 'mimi' is Speaker. Both young women wowed the crowd and showed us a glimpse of the country's future now that the "marble ceiling" has been shattered.

As I sat next to my fellow Democratic women, I got goosebumps! Tomorrow we will be carrying over to the Capitol the thousands of messages received from Democrats around the country to congratulate Speaker Pelosi as she is officially sworn in and takes the gavel for the first time.

Christy Agner is the Director of the Women's Vote Center for the DNC

Mitt's In! Time for a Quiz!

So Mitt Romney wants to run for President. He announced today's he's forming an exploratory committee...and that's great - really - I think the Republicans need a candidate who has held every possible right-wing position there is. Now Mr. Mitt will try and fool you - he'll deny he's Mr. Multiple Choice. But actions speak louder than words.

Now a pop quiz:

Romney’s Position On A Woman’s Right To Choose Is:

A. Abortion Should Be Safe And Legal. “I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country… I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it. And I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice.” [Romney Kennedy Debate Transcript, 10/1994]

B. Not Pro-Choice Or Pro Life. “I've never used either title, pro-life or pro-choice, in the past. I said I don't favor abortion.” [Fox News, 2/26/06]

C. Firmly Pro-Life. “I recognized that we had so cheapened the value of human life, through the Roe v. Wade mentality, that I could no longer stand on the sidelines, if you will. I had to take sides. And I call myself firmly pro-life.” [CNN, 10/17/06]

D. All of the above.

Romney’s Position On A Constitutional Amendment To Ban Same-Sex Marriage:

A. Full Equality for Gays and Lesbians. “As we seek to establish full equality for America's gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent [Ted Kennedy].” [Boston Globe, 10/17/94]

B. Against Constitutional Amendment to Ban Gay Marriage in Massachusetts. In 2002, Romney condemned a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban both gay marriage and domestic-partner benefits in Massachusetts, despite the fact that his wife and son supported it. [Boston Globe, 3/22/02]

C. For Federal Constitutional Amendment To Ban Gay Marriage. “Massachusetts is the front line on marriage, but unless we adopt a federal amendment to protect marriage, what is happening here will unquestionably enter every other state.” [“Transcript of Romney Address to Liberty Sunday,” EvangelicalsforMitt.com, 10/16/06]

D. All of the above.

Romney’s Position On The Bush Tax Cut:

A. Refuses to Publicly Endorse Bush Tax Cuts. Romney refused to endorse tax cuts at the heart of President Bush's economic program in 2003. Romney’s spokesperson said that it’s “just not a state matter.” [Boston Globe, 4/11/03]

B. Brags About Support for Bush Tax Cuts. During a November 13, 2006 press conference held in Arizona, Romney outlined differences between himself and McCain. Romney said “he was quicker than McCain to endorse President Bush's tax cuts.” [East Valley Sun, 11/14/06]

C. All of the above.

And now, for super-duper double bonus points...

Romney’s Governorship Was A Failure Because:

A. Goals Unmet. “Romney himself admits that a number of his goals remain unmet. His inability to lower the nation's highest unemployment insurance rate, to secure merit pay for teachers, and to reinvigorate the Republican Party were among the frustrations he listed.” [Editorial, Boston Globe, 12/26/06]

B. Highest Property Taxes in 25 Years. Romney’s cuts to local aid forced Massachusetts property taxes to their highest level in 25 years. [Quincy Patriot Ledger, 12/16/05]

C. 3,000 Jobs Lost. Romney oversaw a net decrease of more than 3,000 jobs in Massachusetts. [BLS, Seasonally Adjusted Employment Statistics, 12/2002 – 10/2004]

D. All of the above.

If you guessed (D) All of the above you can go to the head of the class!

Wednesday Open Thread

We're back from break and ready to go! Tomorrow we get a brand spanking new Democratic Congress, and it feels great!

What's happening in your neck of the woods?

January 1, 2007

Happy New Year Open Thread

Governor Dean:

"This year, we celebrate not only a new year but a new Democratic Congress charged by the American people to provide a new direction for America. As we honor those who have given so much for the freedom we hold so dear, I hope the New Year brings newfound hope, peace, and prosperity both at home and abroad. When Democrats take control of Congress this month, they do so with a renewed sense of purpose and understanding that voters have entrusted in them the power to restore civility, integrity, and responsibility in government that is as good as the people it serves."

Happy New Year!