Filibuster Primer

Kagro X and the folks at Kos have put together a great primer on the Filibuster issue in the Senate that, by all accounts, is expected to be triggered in the next week, when Senators return from their current recess.

Here's the executive summary of what's covered in the diary:

There's been no shortage of coverage of the nuclear option, here or elsewhere. Everyone knows this issue is a real turd in the punchbowl. But as we head into the weekend - and into the weekend talk shows - it might pay to recap just how underhanded the Republicans have been in selling this piece of crap. Therefore...


Weekend pundits: Here's a wrap-up of how the Republicans are:

1) Breaking the rules of the Senate
2) Lying about previous filibusters and attempts to change the rules
3) Writing inconvenient words out of the Constitution
4) Hiding from their own "nuclear" terminology
5) Lying about the legal theories supporting their power grab
6) Dealing in bad faith with Democratic Senators and the public

Check out the rest of the diary for an expansion on these topics.

Darfur, Through the Eyes of Children

Skippy points us to the following, found at the Human Rights Watch site:

On mission along the border of Chad and Darfur, Human Rights Watch researchers gave children notebooks and crayons to keep them occupied while they spoke with the children’s parents. Without any instruction or guidance, the children drew scenes from their experiences of the war in Darfur: the attacks by the Janjaweed, the bombings by Sudanese government forces, the shootings, the burning of entire villages, and the flight to Chad.

The kids' drawings can be seen HERE.

Kerry On

Counter to the current defeatist thinking of the Left, I still believe that John Kerry was a good candidate and I was proud to not only support him, but work for him. And if the Democrats are to survive, they need to do something important that the Republicans do: Democrats need to stop being defensive about our losers and treat them like winners.

The Democrats eat their own after every defeat. Instead of building upon any foundation they've built, they tear it down and start from scratch every 4 years. Unlike the Republicans, who never throw anyone away. Looking at you, Oliver North. Looking at you Trent Lott. Looking at you Newt Gingrich. Looking at you Bob Dole.

The best example of this is Richard Nixon. Kennedy beat Nixon in an extremely close race in 1960...and Nixon bounced back to win the Presidential election in 1968. Not only that, Nixon went on to win RE-ELECTION...before resigning in disgrace, of course.

Why does this matter? Well, because there are already rumblings of another Kerry run for the White House in '08. Sounds risky? Not as much as you might think.

Of course, Salon expresses doubts:

It doesn't make a lot of sense if you think of the 2004 election as a once-in-a-generation political shift, as a good old fashioned butt-whipping or as a race that seemed for a moment to be Kerry's to lose. But inside John Kerry's head, the logic for a second run may well be there. If you accept the vote count from Kenneth Blackwell, Kerry lost Ohio -- and with it, the election -- by just 118,000 votes. He lost to a sitting president in a time of war; the war may still be going on next time around, but -- so long as Dick Cheney and Condi Rice don't run -- the Republicans won't have that "don't change horses in the middle of the race" argument anymore. And with any luck, Osama bin Laden won't drop a bombshell -- figuratively or literally -- a few days before Nov. 4, 2008. Kerry has said the release of a videotape from bin Laden four days before the 2004 vote stopped his momentum in the polls and underscored Americans' concerns about changing commanders in chief in the midst of a war.

That doesn't mean that Kerry could win in 2008, even if his people are beginning to talk him up on "electability" grounds already. The Massachusetts senator would have to win the Democratic nomination first, and a senator from New York -- among others -- may stand in his way. But U.S. News says that Democratic donors and labor leaders are telling everyone who will listen that Hillary Clinton doesn't have a chance in 2008 -- and not all of them are doing it behind the scenes.

I think it actually makes A LOT of sense. People love a comeback. Defeat humanizes politicians and it offers some humbling lessons which can make a candidate stronger the NEXT time around. And if the Democrats really want to draw a line in the sand, grow a sack, and prove they're not a bunch of equivocating pansies, the best way to do so would be to run our guy again. It sends a strong message: we were right the first time, and we are right this time. It's consistent. It's bold. And best of all, it's completely unapologetic.

Democrats need to stop saying "sorry" for losing races, take a page from the GOP handbook, and start standing up for themselves. If Kerry runs again, it would validate the 56,249,864 voters whose votes counted and the hundreds of thousands of voters whose votes were somehow lost, supressed, or "miscounted."

The fact that Kerry hasn't gone into hiding and hasn't backed down from the tough fights makes me hopeful that not only was he the better choice last time 'round; he just might be the best choice next time 'round, as well.

Of course, we do need to teach him how to deliver a joke. Perhaps a few open mike nights between now and then are in order...

Soc. Sec. Lingo: Progressive Indexing

It's becoming increasingly difficulty to cut through the fuzz that's collecting around the Social Security debate. In today's Boston Globe, Robert Kuttner does a good job explaining why Progressive Indexing (an idea currently being flogged by the Preznit) isn't going to be so great on those of us in the middling income brackets. The editorial is straight forward, concise, and informative, so give it a look.

Here's a couple grafs to whet the appetite:

''Progressive indexing" is a disguised benefit cut, but the disguise is pitifully transparent. Here's how it works:

Under the present Social Security system, both workers and retirees are protected against inflation. During the four decades of my working life, Americans' real incomes and consumer prices have gone steadily up. So if I retire, say, in 2016, I will get an initial Social Security check based not on my income when I first earned a paycheck in 1966 but on my lifetime contribution to the system adjusted for current prices. And the inflation adjustments continue after I retire. (This cost-of-living guarantee is why Social Security beats any private alternative.)

Bush wants to keep the postretirement adjustments but slash the inflation adjustments that occur during a person's working life except for the poorest Americans. The result would be a steep reduction in benefits for middle-class workers, since their anticipated retirement benefits are steadily eroded by inflation. People's initial Social Security check would be progressively reduced relative to what current law promises.

[snip]

For example, someone with an income of $36,500 -- roughly the median -- would get a 13 percent benefit cut by 2030, a 21 percent benefit cut by 2050, and a 40 percent cut by 2080, depending on when retirement began.

An upper-middle-income earner with a current income of $90,000 would get steeper cuts: 24 percent by 2030, 41 percent by 2050, and 60 percent by 2080. And these cuts would apply whether or not you diverted part of your payroll taxes to private accounts. These would be cuts in the guaranteed part of the benefit.

"When the President Talks to God"

If you follow music very closely, you've probably heard of Bright Eyes. On one hand, a lot of people dismiss him for being too emo, and on the other a lot of people love his music. I won't deny having a couple of his songs on my iPod. But last night, he had a great peformance on the Leno show, with an apparently unscheduled song (Leno announces before the performance that he'll be playing something different) called "When the President Talks to God". They let him go, and they broadcasted it later that evening. You can watch it in it's entirety HERE. (wmp)

Here are the lyrics:

"When the President Talks to God"

When the president talks to God
Are the conversations brief or long?
Does he ask to rape our women's' rights
And send poor farm kids off to die?
Does God suggest an oil hike
When the president talks to God?

When the president talks to God
Are the consonants all hard or soft?
Is he resolute all down the line?
Is every issue black or white?
Does what God say ever change his mind
When the president talks to God?

When the president talks to God
Does he fake that drawl or merely nod?
Agree which convicts should be killed?
Where prisons should be built and filled?
Which voter fraud must be concealed
When the president talks to God?

When the president talks to God
I wonder which one plays the better cop
We should find some jobs. the ghetto's broke
No, they're lazy, George, I say we don't
Just give 'em more liquor stores and dirty coke
That's what God recommends

When the president talks to God
Do they drink near beer and go play golf
While they pick which countries to invade
Which Muslim souls still can be saved?
I guess god just calls a spade a spade
When the president talks to God

When the president talks to God
Does he ever think that maybe he's not?
That that voice is just inside his head
When he kneels next to the presidential bed
Does he ever smell his own bullshit
When the president talks to God?

I doubt it

I doubt it

(Via the Kos diaries)

"Every club audience is a swing state."

John Rogers over at Kung Fu Monkey points out that politicians could learn a thing or two from stand-up comics...and I ain't too proud to link to it.

Here's a little slice o' Rogers' wisdom:

Now who the hell am I to even think I have something to contribute here? Well, let's say the candidate's job is to walk into a room of complete strangers and get them to like him. Connect with him. Wow, the few rare politicians who can do that, they're worth their weight in gold.

I did that for twelve years. So did hundreds of other people you've never heard of. We're stand-ups, and that's the ENTRY-LEVEL for the job.

A good stand-up can walk into a room, a bar with no stage and a shit mic, in the deep goddam South or Montana or Portland or Austin or Boston, and not only tell jokes with differing political opinions than the crowd, can get them to laugh. With all due respect to our brother performers in theater, etc., we can walk into a room of any size from 20 to 2000 complete strangers with no shared background and not just evoke emotion ... we can evoke a specific strong emotion every 15 seconds. For an HOUR. A good stand-up can make fun of your relationship with your wife, make fun of your job, make fun of your politics, all in front of a thousand strangers, and afterward that same person will go up and invite the stand-up to a barbecue.

In short -- every club audience is a swing state.

Mission Accomplished

Candidate George W. Bush, from the October 3rd, 2000 debate, on the "proper" use of the US military. I've taken the liberty of emphasizing some of his key points.

BUSH: Well, if it's in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are -- our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force. Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear. Whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win. Whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped. And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy. I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. So I would take my responsibility seriously. And it starts with making sure we rebuild our military power. Morale in today's military is too low. We're having trouble meeting recruiting goals. We met the goals this year, but in the previous years we have not met recruiting goals. Some of our troops are not well-equipped. I believe we're overextended in too many places. And therefore I want to rebuild the military power. It starts with a billion dollar pay raise for the men and women who wear the uniform. A billion dollars more than the president recently signed into law. It's to make sure our troops are well-housed and well-equipped. Bonus plans to keep some of our high-skilled folks in the services and a commander in chief that sets the mission to fight and win war and prevent war from happening in the first place.

Well, let's see how the actions of Commander-in-Chief George W. Bush compares to the rhetoric of candidate George W. Bush (hint: not so good). From Salon:

Turns out these days Uncle Sam's about as popular as detention on American high school campuses. For the third straight month the U.S. Army failed to reach its recruiting goals.

"As of April 30 the Army had achieved only 85% of its target for the first five months of the fiscal year, which began Oct. 1," according to the Associated Press. "Opinion surveys have indicated that a growing number of young people and their parents are wary of the Army's recruiting pitch at a time when soldiers in Iraq are killed and wounded virtually every day. Spring is typically one of the more difficult periods of the year for military recruiters."

The shortfall is not only an embarrassment for the Pentagon, but it puts real strain on the armed forces as it's stretched around the world, particularly in the Gulf region. Some experts have fretted that if the military continues to come up short on recruits, and U.S. troops remain committed to Iraq for years on end, that the possibility looms that a draft may be needed. Politically, it's highly unlikely. But as recruiting numbers continue to sag, the option cannot be ruled out.

And it's not like the Army is falling just short of its monthly goals. It's not even coming close. According to one military spokesman quoted by the AP, the Army fell 32 percent short of its March goal of landing 6,800 recruits. That means despite a nationwide concerted effort to hit its goals, and a country of roughly 10 million 18 to 24-year olds, the Army, wielding all kinds of incentives, was able to sign up only 4,600 recruits in March.

News on the Army and Guard front is even worse: "The Army National Guard and Army Reserve have had even more trouble recruiting. In March the Army Reserve signed up barely half the 1,600 soldiers it sought [Empasis added]."

So, if the goals of incoming President Bush were to raise morale, boost recruitment numbers, avoid nation builidng, prevent our troops from being overextended, better equip our troops, and provide a clear mission and a solid exit strategy for military operations....well, the record kind of speaks for itself.

Luckily, in Bizarro World, this is all GOOD news...

Know When To Hold Em...

...Know when to fold em.

E.J. Dionne is absolutely correct. The game of reforming doing away with Social Security has been fixed from the beginning by the Bush Administration and it's allies. Anyone who supports the program (e.g. Dems) need to back away from the table. You can't beat the house when the odds are stacked so heavily against you:

Bush's "plan" is still not a plan, just a few ideas. If the president is serious, let him first persuade members of his own party to agree to a detailed proposal so everyone knows what the trade-offs are. If what he has in mind is a good idea, Republicans will be eager to sign on. And if Bush can't get Republicans to go along, might that say something about the merits of his suggestions?

Opponents of Bush's cut-and-privatize project -- they include not only Democrats but also skeptical Republicans -- do have a responsibility. Their task is to subject half-baked concepts to the criticism they deserve and insist that they be fully baked before serious discussions can begin. Social Security, the most successful government program in our history, should not be overturned lightly.

[snip]

Bush has refused to put his own tax cuts on the table as part of a Social Security fix. Repealing Bush's tax cuts for those earning more than $350,000 a year could cover all or most of the 75-year Social Security shortfall. Keeping part of the estate tax in place could cover a quarter to half of the shortfall. Some of the hole could be filled in by a modest surtax on dividends or capital gains.

But Bush is resolute about protecting the interests of the truly rich by making sure that any taxes on wealth are ruled out of the game from the beginning. The Social Security cuts he is proposing for the wealthy are a pittance compared with the benefits they get from his tax cuts. The president is keeping his eye on what really matters to him.

Bush isn't really planning on hearing a debate. He's only hoping to hoodwink a couple pliable Democrats into coming to a compromise that none of them should remotely be considering. Then he can do what he wants (i.e. privatize the entire shebang), and our kids and grandkids will pay for it while the corporate interests who will most surely be involved line their pockets with the inevitable "fees".

On Evolution and Religion

Richard Dawkins:

[Without religion], we'd all be freed to concentrate on the only life we are ever going to have. We'd be free to exult in the privilege -- the remarkable good fortune -- that each one of us enjoys through having been being born. An astronomically overwhelming majority of the people who could be born never will be. You are one of the tiny minority whose number came up. Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain and presumptuous desire for a second one. The world would be a better place if we all had this positive attitude to life. It would also be a better place if morality was all about doing good to others and refraining from hurting them, rather than religion's morbid obsession with private sin and the evils of sexual enjoyment.

Amen to that.

Read the rest of the interview at Salon.com (registration required)

Good natured ribbing

First Lady Laura Bush on her husband:

"He's learned a lot about ranching since that first year, when he tried to milk the horse. What's worse, it was a male horse," she said.

From Earthtimes.org:

George (President Bush) is usually in bed by now. I'm married to the president of the United States and here's our typical evening: Nine o'clock and Mr. Excitement here is sound asleep. I'm a desperate housewife ... left watching 'Desperate Housewives' -- with Lynne Cheney (the Vice President's wife)."

She then went on to tell how the vice president's wife went to a Chippendale's (men's strip club), "along with Condoleezza Rice and (top presidential adviser) Karen Hughes."

"But it was OK. (Supreme Court justices) Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Sandra Day O'Connor saw us there. I won't say what went on, but let's just say that Lynne's Secret Service nickname now is 'Dollar Bill.'"

Hahahahaha! Double standards are hilarious!