Stalking 12-year-olds

Apparently, even twelve-year-olds who speak out against the president are Fair Game.

The CoS would be proud. :-(

Hmmm.

This might be a good way to raise some money and make sure the girls are properly taken care of...

Time on Edwards

Time responds to the hypocrisy charges that you brought here the other day.

Another challenge is that much of the attention he's gotten recently has been the unflattering kind, stories that question his sincerity and assail his image as a fighter for the little guy by focusing on his pricey haircuts, huge house and hedge-fund job. These viral attacks, spreading from the Drudge Report and other blogs to newspapers everywhere, make a dumb argument. They assume that someone who's wealthy can't be a sincere advocate for poor and working people. By that logic, the healthy can't speak on behalf of the sick, or whites on behalf of people of color. But in politics, of course, dumb arguments can hurt you, which is why some Edwards aides urged him not to build such a big house. Their effort failed because the Edwardses—having battled cancer and lost a son, Wade, in an automobile accident 11 years ago, when he was 16—wanted to enjoy the luxuries they could afford. "We live our lives," says Elizabeth. "We're not pretending to be anything we're not. People have said, Don't do this or that. How would it look? But I honestly don't know how much time I've got. So we're going to live our lives."

Here's what would truly be hypocritical: if Edwards spoke out on behalf of the disadvantaged while pushing policies that benefit the rich. This he does not do. He favors boosting the capital-gains tax rate for families earning over $250,000 and closing the loophole that allows fund managers—like those at Fortress Investment Group, where he earned almost $500,000 in 2006—to get taxed at just 15%. "He wants to take money away from the people who paid him," says deputy campaign manager Jonathan Prince. "That's not hypocrisy. That's sincerity."

But once a politician is branded as inauthentic, however unfairly, it's hard to shake the label. (Ask Gore.)

Goldberry@Kos nails it

Dear Republican Lurkers:

Yes, YOU. We know you're out there, scoping the lefty blogosphere to see how we're chortling with glee over Larry Craig's fall from grace. Read wmtriallawyer's diary for our true sentiments on the issue. Larry Craig is gay, not that there's anything wrong with that. It wasn't the gay part that got him into trouble. It was the hiding it part. We're not celebrating that. We're just having a bit of schadenfreude at his expense. It will pass pretty quickly.

No, the Craig Scandal has once again turned the spotlight on the biggest problem the GOP has these days: You have your priorities all wrong.

Take a good look at the frontpage. See that pic of George Bush and John McCain with the birthday cake? In the diary that commemorates the day we lost one of our most beloved cities? Oh, you missed it? No surprise there.

"Brownie's Law"

It's a crying shame that this is considered newsworthy, instead of a given...

Passing "Brownie's Law," so agencies like FEMA get the job done: Edwards will enact a new requirement - "Brownie's Law" - ensuring that senior political appointees actually are qualified to perform the job to which they are appointed. Brownie's Law will require that heads of executive agencies and other senior officials have demonstrated qualifications in the field related to their job.

SCHIP

*headdesk*

Tommy Thompson, 2001:

So, working with the President, we've developed a new program that will provide better health care for the millions of Americans who lack medical insurance or access to affordable care. The President announced the program a short time ago on his weekly nationwide radio address, and I'm here today to outline to you how it will work.

It's called the Health Insurance Flexibility and Accountability Initiative. This new model waiver program makes it faster, easier, and simpler for states to expand access to health insurance to low-income citizens through Medicaid and through SCHIP demonstrations.

The program is budget neutral, and it's a partnership between Washington and the states. It's not top- down. We want to work with you, in partnership, to expand health insurance to the most vulnerable and needy members of our society, most especially, to those whose incomes are under 200 percent of the poverty level.

You know what works best in your home states. You know the specific needs of your people. We've designed the model waiver program to give you the tools and the flexibility you need to advance benefits and quality care to those back home who need it the most.

Mark McClellan, 2006:

To provide States with the ability to structure their SCHIP plans to improve coverage and the quality of services available to beneficiaries, the Secretary has the authority to waive aspects of the Federal statute and regulations governing SCHIP. This allows States to amend their programs to increase health insurance coverage and encourage innovation. Using section 1115 of the Social Security Act, States can more effectively tailor their programs to meet local needs and can experiment with new approaches to providing health care services. These demonstrations have been used to provide health insurance to uninsured children, parents, caretaker guardians, and pregnant women. For example, CMS recently extended a demonstration in Minnesota that allows the State to use SCHIP funds to provide coverage to those with incomes from 100 to 200 percent of FPL who are parents and relative caretakers of Medicaid- and SCHIP-eligible children. Extending coverage to parents and caretaker relatives not only serves to cover additional uninsured individuals, but it may also increase the likelihood that they will take the steps necessary to enroll their children. Extending coverage to parents and caretakers may also increase the likelihood that their children remain enrolled in SCHIP. For example, in New Jersey, which covers parents through a section 1115 demonstration, the State found that having one parent enrolled increased the likelihood that a child remains enrolled.

Dennis Smith, 2007:

In addition, to ensure that expansion to higher income populations does not interfere with the effective and efficient provision of child health assistance coordinated with other sources of health benefits coverage, and to prevent substitution of SCHIP coverage for coverage under group health plans, we will ask for such a State to make the following assurances:

• Assurance that the State has enrolled at least 95 percent of the children in the State below 200 percent of the FPL who are eligible for either SCHIP or Medicaid (including a description of the steps the State takes to enroll these eligible children);
  
• Assurance that the number of children in the target population insured through private employers has not decreased by more than two percentage points over the prior five year period; and
  
• Assurance that the State is current with all reporting requirements in SCHIP and Medicaid and reports on a monthly basis data relating to the crowd-out requirements.

We will continue to review all State monitoring plans, including those States whose upper eligibility levels are below an effective level of 250 percent of the FPL, to determine whether the monitoring plans are being followed and whether the crowd-out procedures specified in the SCHIP state plans are reasonable and effective in preventing crowd-out.

We're so screwed.

Over five years after his arrest, multiple trips to the Supreme Court, and being held for years in a military brig without charge, counsel or judicial review--Padilla is found guilty. It's a jury verdict that has been so de-legitimized by the Administration's shenanigans in this case, that it's rendered practically (if not legally) meaningless. And we should all feel guilty for allowing a U.S. citizen to be subjected to this.

The jury ruling has been so de-legitimized by the twisted path to "justice" of the Padilla case that I search in vain for the meaning. He was arrested in May 2002 on a "material witness" warrant. Two days before the District Court was to rule on the validity of continuing to hold him, Bush designated him an "enemy combatant." He petitioned for habeas corpus to the Supreme Court, which dismissed his petition on technical grounds for being filed in the wrong court against the wrong person. He refiled in the proper court and got a favorable decision. But then a panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Bush DOES have the authority to detain him without charges indefinitely. Meanwhile, the Administration released highly-inflammatory information alleging that Padilla was planning to blow up apartment buildings here in the U.S. (He was originally said to have wanted to set off a radiological "dirty bomb.") Padilla again appeals to the Supreme Court. A few days before Bush has to file arguments, Padilla is indicted in Miami on charges that he conspired to "murder, kidnap and maim" people overseas--charges totally unrelated to what the government used to justify holding him without charges.

So, he and his two co-defendants are found guilty of "support of terrorism" charges--not a big surprise given the jury's quick return from its day-and-a-half deliberations (never a good sign) following a 3-month trial.

But the conviction is a really a reflection on us. We are all guilty for letting a U.S. citizen be subjected to this kind of "justice."

Very smart commenter at TPMmuckraker

This guy seems to know what he's talking about. You have to do a lot of scrolling to find his posts, but it's worth it.

Yes, and there's a rule about that as well: ORCON, it's illegal go classify evidence of illegal activity.

Which takes us back to the dispute over Cheney's assertion that "that" EO "didn't apply." The "EO that did or didn't apply" contains the rules on ORCON.
It doesn't matter whether the "_EO_" did or didn't apply, the _32 CFR 2800_ does apply: It has OVP name on it. It can be enforced through prosecutions; and that CFR _does_ list EOs which _do_ apply.

Whether the _standards listed_ does or does not apply is meaningless; the issue is whether the _requirement_ regardless which standard is used, ignored, or explained away is _legally enforceable_. Arguing over which EO does or doesn't apply is a distraction from [a] the ORCON requirements which prohibit classification of that data; and [b] the data which _must_ be protected per the applicable CFR: 38 CFR 2800.
- - - -
This takes us back to the RNC e-mails. Recall, the White Hose legal counsel did something very stupid:
1. Determined that the information would be protected by privilege
2. Created an illegal backup database
3. Destroyed that database

Here's the problem, and why we know legal counsel was involved: Once someone assumes a database will "never" see the light of day; they have a choice: Do they talk candidly; or do they use that "to be forever hidden" database to hide illegal activity?

Here's how we know something very important: Once the evidence of illegal activity was _known_ to be revealed; and that _claims_ of executive privilege would _fail_, then they had a problem: The backup e-mail could be detected; and the _existence_ and content of that backup e-mail could be breached.
In other words, one does not destroy evidence in the RNC e-mails unless they believe that privilege would fail; but then contradict themselves and say, "But we have executive privilege". That defies reason. Again, if the _expectation_ of privilege -- going forward from time of creation -- were real, then there would have been [wait for it] [a] no reason to have a backup systems; no reason to have an e-mail system that violated the law; and no reason to _destroy_ the very thing that would "forever" enjoy a shield of privilege.
- - -

Rule: Privilege isn't a power: It's a _claim_ that the _court_ doe snot have to recognize. If a claim of privilege has been abused; or adverse inferences _about missing data_ suggest that the evidence was _illegally destroyed_, the claim of privilege is one that the court is _not required_ to recognize. A defendant can do things that will make the claim meaningless, without effect, or irrelevant: By disclosing that information in an e-mail, as Miers did with the DoJ e-mail.
Executive privilege isn't something the _court_ is required to recognize. It can be claimed, asserted, and demanded as a "right" but that's meaningless: It is a _court recognized_ claim that the court -- for whatever reason it chooses -- can refuse.

ETA: One of the Kos posters went through and pulled all of Anon's posts into one diary.

Public opinion polls during WWII

Percent approving of the way FDR was doing his job: never below 65%.

Percent believing Allies winning: after November 1942, never below 75%.

Percent willing to make peace with Hitler: never above 25%.

Why I like Edwards

David Mizner sums it up over at Kos:

Also because we sense in Edwards a freedom that's rare for a top-tier presidential candidate. He's relatively free from the ties that normally bind candidates. Conventional wisdom, the approval of the Establishment, pressure from big donors: none of this is constraining him.

He's a liberated poltician, and a liberated politician, dear Kossacks, is a beautiful and dangerous thing.

A memo for David Brooks

David Corn thinks David Brooks may be a little off in his op-eds.

He claimed his trip proved Iraq had made no such attempts, though his own report said nothing of the kind.

He did not claim his trip had "proved"--your word--the matter. He wrote that after speaking with past and present officials of Niger and "people associated with the country's uranium business," he had concluded that "it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place." (We can forward you a copy of his op-ed.) And, as you know, columnists of the Times are not fact-checked. But we would point out that in his Times op-ed, Mr. Wilson did not claim, as you state, that "his trip proved Iraq had made no such attempts" to purchase uranium. He maintained that "there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired." And--not to belabor what might be a fact-checking issue--according to a Senate intelligence committee investigation, the report written by the CIA on Mr. Wilson's trip "described how the structure of Niger's uranium mines would make it difficult, if not impossible, for Niger to sell uranium to any rogue states."

Right-wing contradictions

Jerome a Paris@Kos points out an interesting contradiction in a recent FT op-ed.

NordicStorm also noted that Klaus did not have qualms using the following two sentences (which directly contradict one another) in the same article:

The scientists should help us and take into consideration the political effects of their scientific opinions.

Let us resist the politicisation of science

This is their mindset. Science that agrees with our ideology is objective; science that disagrees is politicized, manipulated or debatable. Reality is not acknowledged.

Blast from the past

I was just cleaning up my saved emails, when I came across the following comment on my blog from last year.

I can't believe you pulled the Plame incident into this, seeing as how the original story has been completely discredited. Turns out that it was all a lie, Garrett. And, as folks you don't care to believe have said all along, Joe Wilson is a partisan-motivated liar.

Why don't you try a bit harder to seek the truth in matters rather than rely on partisan rhetoric? At least it'll make these discussions interesting rather than ... as usual ... having me bitch-slap you in the end.

So, Gonzo, have you finally acknowledged that she was a covert agent when she was outed, or are you relying on Toensing's insistence that she was not "covert under the meaning of the act"?

Torture hurts us, too

It's a fundamental property of the universe: the observed acts on the observer.

"But you're trying to fight the bad guys," she said. She knows he is haunted. He got an honorable discharge after a diagnosis of "adjustment disorder." He startles awake, she said: "Last night you had a dream --"

"I never saw a ghost in Abu Ghraib," he said. "But I saw a ghost last night. It was me."

"Seeing innocent people being tortured is hard," she said.

"Not the things I saw, but the things I did. You keep saying 'torturing the innocent,' but the two brothers I tortured were guilty. It doesn't mean you should torture them."

Saint Libby

I have just one word: Eeeeew.

Listening to people who know what they're talking about...

...is always a good idea. Joe Sestak defended his recent vote for the Emergency Supplemental Bill as follows:

Last week, Congress voted on an emergency supplemental bill for Iraq and Afghanistan. It was not what I wanted– it did not contain a date certain for redeployment that I had previously voted for and President Bush had vetoed. But it provided the resources our troops needed to be safe until September. I could not deprive the men and women of our armed forces those funds required for their security until they redeploy.

I saw combat in Afghanistan and Iraq. The first was a just war; the second, a tragic misadventure. And since the day I announced for Congress, I have never deviated from what I said that day: a date certain to redeploy from Iraq within a year is the only viable strategy that will change the incentives for the political leaders of Iraq– along with Iran's and Syria's– to change their behavior and work for stability and an unfailed Iraqi state.

But I've run the Navy's $67 billion annual warfare program, and I know that annual defense money is only so fungible between defense funding accounts, and the account called "operations" will run out in July. The practical result is an America unable to then provide its servicemen and women what they need to defend themselves in Iraq or Afghanistan. I also know that redeploying out of an area of conflict is the most challenging of military operations, and to do it safely for our 140,000 military personnel– and the thousands of US civilians in Iraq– will take at least six months....

At long last, have they no shame?

Chicago Sun-Times:

Bush administration officials, stung by complaints from Democratic Gov. Kathleen Sebelius that National Guard heavy equipment needed by tornado-stricken Greensburg, Kan., is in Iraq, are putting out word that she was two days late at the disaster scene because she was attending a jazz festival in New Orleans.

Wichita Eagle:

Sebelius was in New Orleans with her family when the tornado hit that Friday evening. But she was notified that night about the tornado, and she and her staff in Kansas immediately began trying to assess the damage. When the scope of the disaster became clear, they began making arrangements for her return.

Sebelius didn’t attend any of the jazz festival and left her family in New Orleans, flying back Saturday afternoon using a plane arranged by Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco. Sebelius didn’t go to Greensburg until Sunday, Corcoran said, because Kansas National Guard Maj. Gen. Tod Bunting told her it would be best to wait until then. That way she wouldn’t disrupt ongoing rescue efforts.

Now or never?

Could be...

...the Democrats' apparent plan to wait out the clock on the Bush Administration is an utterly dangerous thing to do --

...not because Bush is dangerous, but because a future President with at least twice his current approval ratings

...and all of Bush's acquired powers and asserted (without effective contet) precedents

...will be tempted to do everything we always feared Bush would do the Republic ---

...and do it to the sound of madly cheering crowds.

And later...

And that is enough support, plus the power concentrated in Bush's hands, to allow Bush...

to have his war and fund it, too....

...to commit high crimes and misdemeanors, and to delegate them, too...

...to refuse summons, to produce evidence and testimony, to lie blatantly and cheerfully under oath, knowing that no one dare call the least of them out for it...

...to destroy in plain sight evidence of the greatest, most systematic destruction of our national security infrastructure since the British sailed up the Potomac and burned Washington DC to the ground and shelled every major port city on the Eastern Seaboard, to boot.

No, I take that back; it is in fact much worse. We used to have some idea of what secrets were compromised.

Is she missing the point?

What's she president of again?

Yesterday on Fox News’s Your World With Neil Cavuto, Leslee Unruh, president of the National Abstinence Clearinghouse, argued that this pill a “pesticide” that will make women “like men.” She called it an “attack on children and families,” ending the segment with shouts of, “I want more babies. More babies. We love babies.”

David Sirota shows how the Dems are going to stealth-pass the blank check bill

Ok, now I'm really pissed.

Here's how it is expected to work today in a process only Dick Cheney could love (though you never know - it could change at the last minute). Every bill comes to the House floor with what is known as a "rule" that sets the terms of the debate over the legislation in question. House members first vote to approve this parliamentary rule, and then vote on the legislation. Today, however, Democrats are planning to essentially include the Iraq blank check bill IN the rule itself, by making sure the underlying bill the rule brings to the floor includes no timelines for withdrawal, and that the rule only allows amendments that fund the war with no restrictions - blank check amendments that House Democratic leaders know Republicans will have the votes to pass.

This means that when the public goes to look for the real vote on the Iraq supplemental bill, the public won't find that. All we will find is a complex parliamentary procedure vote, which was the real vote. Democratic lawmakers, of course, will use the Memorial Day recess to tell their angry constituents they really are using all of their power to end the war, that they voted against the Republican blank check amendment which the rule deliberately propels, and that the vote on the rule - which was the real vote for war - wasn't really the important vote, when, in fact, they know very well it is the biggest vote on the war since original 2002 authorization for the invasion. It is a devious, deliberately confusing cherry on top of the manure sundae being served up to the American public, which voted Democrats into office on the premise that they would use their congressional majority to end the war.