November 2007

More Than One Political Scientist Has Made This Point

Hilarious 

“What has he done?” Capparelli asked. “I don’t think he does a good job. When you look at the guy, are you proud to say, ‘This is my Congressman?’ The answer is ‘no.’ A lot of people in the neighborhood say he’s a dork. There. I said it. The guy doesn’t know what he’s doing. He’s an awful public speaker, and he’s gone to school his whole life. I take public transportation, the 62H. I don’t think he has ever taken public transportation. He would pee in his pants if he had to take it.”

Lipinski’s response, after I read him the quote, was laughter and then: “That’s a tough one to respond to because it’s not a very professional statement to call someone a dork. I don’t claim to be the greatest public speaker there is, but I’m honest and straightforward. And I have spent hundreds of hours on CTA buses in my life. I’m involved in all kinds of communities in my district.”

Not a very professional statement.

I think McQueary is having fun with this one:

Meanwhile, Lipinski said, he is in the district as much as the congressional schedule allows. Like his father, former U.S. Rep. William Lipinski, Dan Lipinski sleeps on the floor of his congressional office to avoid the expense and hassle of a Washington, D.C., apartment.

“I leave after the last vote on Thursday or Friday and am back in the district,” he said. “I’m working harder than they’ve seen a congressman do in a number of years. I will stand by that. Even the former congressman would agree.”

Of course he would.

Daily Dolt: Aaron Schock, Fighting Non-Proliferation With Proliferation

Aaron Schock is now in the competition for being the stupidest candidate to run this cycle. I’m taking a bigger chunk from the column because it is so amazing so my apologies to Bernie and the Springfield Journal-Register:

I couldn’t attend Schock’s official announcement of his candidacy for Congress, but I did recently receive a copy of his speech, which included a number of foreign policy proposals.

In particular, Schock’s plan to offer nuclear arms to Taiwan if China doesn’t go along with U.S. policy toward Iran seemed odd to me.

An international relations expert I checked with agreed, saying that idea not only shows “incredible naivete,” but, if carried out, probably would lead to war between China and Taiwan.

Shock, a Peoria Republican, at 26, is the youngest member of the Illinois General Assembly. He also is one of the three Republican candidates to replace retiring U.S. Rep. RAY LaHOOD, R-Peoria, in Illinois’ 18th Congressional District. Schock made his intentions official Oct. 27 with events in Peoria Heights and Springfield.

In his speech, he noted that President RONALD REAGAN came to the aid of such rebel groups as the Contras in Nicaragua and the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan. Schock said Reagan also provided freedom movements such as Solidarity in Poland “with CIA training in organizing, and all the equipment necessary to function.”

“Any freedom movement in a totalitarian country faces enormous difficulty in organizing against the unlimited resources of a ruthless state,” Schock said in the speech. “Those freedom movements need help from free nations. In Congress, I will advocate for them.

Schock said he would propose spending the same amount to support “freedom fighters inside Iran” as Iran gives Hezbollah in Lebanon each year

“Let’s turn the tables,” Schock said.

The money could be used to train underground leaders in how to organize and prevent detection, satellite phones, communications, radio broadcasts from nearby countries, “and eventually arms,” Schock said.

“Funding a freedom movement to overthrow the regime will cause massive turmoil in Iran,” he went on. “No American troops will be necessary. We will simply facilitate the people’s overthrow of the Iranian regime, just (as) we did successfully all over Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union, Ethiopia and Nicaragua.

In regard to Taiwan, Schock said the U.S. should put more pressure on China and Russia to go along with tougher economic sanctions against Iran.

“If China continues to be irresponsible about nuclear proliferation in Iran, we should tell them that if they do not care about proliferation — and since they are enablers of it in Iran — that if they don’t change their position, we will sell Pershing nuclear missiles to Taiwan for their defense.”

“Non-proliferation will either be enforced universally or not at all — it is their choice,” Schock continued. “The Chinese will come around, I have no doubt.”

The obvious problem is that if we were to scrap the non-proliferation treaty, as this move would require, there would be no way to force inspection or be able to use multilateral tools to pressure countries to not go nuclear and it would mean that countries like Pakistan and North Korea would be free to engage in proliferation activities. This isn’t just stupid, it’s dangerously stupid.

If Taiwan were to even think seriously about developing a nuclear deterrent, mainland China would attack and we would be forced to enter into World War III or let Taiwan fall.

This is exactly the kind of insanity that Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld were promoting when they kept sending envoys trying to get Taiwan to declare independence, only this would utterly destroy the entire fabric of non-proliferation policy worldwide.

Aaron Schock is a moron and anyone this dangerous must be stopped from getting to Congress.

H/T Rich 

Someone is Not Like the Others

Democrats voting against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) which makes it illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation who didn’t vote no because it didn’t included Transgendered individuals:

11 Southern Democrats
4 Democrats From Border States (I’m including W. Virginia here)

1 Northern Democrat

John Barrow (D-Georgia)
Marion Berry (D-Arkansas)
Bud Cramer (D-Alabama)
Artur Davis (D-Alabama)
Lincoln Davis (D-Tennessee)
Chet Edwards (D-Texas)
Nick Lampson (D-Texas)
Dan Lipinski (D-Illinois)
Jim Marshall (D-Georgia)
Mike McIntyre (D-North Carolina)
Charlie Melacon (D-Louisiana)
Nick Rahall (D-West Virginia)
Heath Shuler (D-North Carolina)
Ike Skelton (D-Missouri)
John Tanner (D-Tennessee)
Gene Taylor (D-Mississippi)

Why does a Congressman from Illinois vote like a Congressman from Mississippi?

Remember, Illinois passed a state level ENDA already.

Ledes That Suck

Hunter. Who else?

The indisputable force of Hillary Clinton, her tenacious lead for the Democratic nomination, has finally “fired up” Barack Obama and made him “ready to go” — to use his own campaign refrain.

Now reading the rest, let me suggest something.  I write a lot of sentences that are awkward and have too many clause. However, I’m writing a blog.  She is not.  Someone edit the woman.

Learn To Read a Poll Asshat

Mark Blumenthal points out that Mark Halperin is a miserable fucking excuse for a journalist.

Yesterday, I wrote about an aspect of the way the media has been covering the campaign that “makes me want to scream.” Today, we have a story about a new poll in New Hampshire that may turn me into Howard Beale.

Via The Page we learn of a new telephone survey of just 401 “likely primary voters” conducted November 1-4 by Boston/New Hampshire television station WBZ and Franklin Pierce University (story, results, tables). Given the small sample size (which includes likely voters for each primary), the initial intent may have been to focus on issues of interest to all primary voters rather than the usual trial-heat results. Issues were the focus of the poll story that WBZ broadcast last night. But that is not the way it worked out in their online article.

===

The lead:

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and New York Senator Hillary Clinton continue to hold on to their lead in the latest WBZ/Franklin Pierce University New Hampshire Primary Poll.

The story also characterizes Hillary Clinton’s “lead” as “very strong.”

The problem? The WBZ/Franklin Pierce poll did not ask a question about vote preference (at least not that was referenced in the story or any of the materials posted online, and our calls to the number provided in the PDF were not answered). Here are the two questions they asked that were referenced in the story:

Mark Halperin is very serious though.

Exactly What is the Argument in the Trib Editorial

From Friday

The confirmation of Michael Mukasey as the next U.S. attorney general is in trouble. Some Democratic leaders are threatening to kill the nomination in the Senate Judiciary Committee next week unless Mukasey explicitly declares that a harsh interrogation technique known as waterboarding is illegal.

He won’t do that. And he shouldn’t.

Mukasey’s stand has nothing to do with whether he favors the technique, which gives prisoners the sensation of drowning. He doesn’t. He has said he’s personally against it, that it is “repugnant” and “over the line.”
But he won’t say it is illegal. And there’s at least one important reason: Such a declaration could open the potential for criminal prosecution or lawsuits against CIA officers who used the harsh interrogation practice. It could also endanger their bosses and anyone else who authorized the practice.

Why, yes, it could open up for prosecution people who waterboarded others.  Here’s a hint why it matters, the Attorney General is supposed to enforce the law.

It gets better

A vote for Mukasey is not a vote to defend waterboarding. The technique is illegal under the 2005 anti-torture amendment promoted by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). That law prohibited “cruel, inhuman and degrading” treatment of prisoners — including waterboarding, as McCain and others reiterated in a letter sent to Mukasey this week.

So now, the Trib has completely undercut its argument because if it is clearly illegal, then why won’t Mukasey say it is?

It isn’t a dangerous liability if people broke the law to say that they broke the law. It is the rule of law.

Mark Halperin Meets a Real Journalist

Claims Lynn Sweet got her secrecy column on Obama from Clinton Researchers

Mark Halperin is a miserable fucking excuse for a journalist.

Lynn Sweet has been taking Obama to task on transparency for some time. In fact, the first column I noted was on September 10, 2004. I have a few more references interspersed at this search, but that isn’t even all of the columns/posts she has done on Obama and transparancy.
There are a couple cases where I think she was being a bit nitpicky, but mostly I cannot disagree with her. Obama has said he wants to run a more open campaign and she’s doing a straight up story on whether he’s meeting his own goals. The best was probably when she tracked down Bill Burton’s office before the campaign had even created a campaign office.

Sweet does something Halperin might consider doing–she looks up facts and then reports them.

Carefully Monitored Torture

Isn’t so bad according to Fran over at Illinois Review

Seems like good enough reasons to push these cold-blooded murderers ’til just short of the breaking point, doesn’t it?  Waterboarding is carefully monitored torture — something they can avoid if they tell what they know.

And because these radical extremists decapitate innocent journalists and strap bombs to children, we know they will not fight according to traditional war decorum, they choose to operate outside the protection of the Geneva Convention Rules.

Careful monitoring of torture is apparently fine.  But torturing someone without careful monitoring—ooooohhhhh noooooo.  We don’t do that.

In other fun, George Dienhart suggests that since George Bush isn’t doing the same things as Musharraf, it’s silly to criticize the President. It is left unclear as to when one might start complaining, but let me suggest a few criteria:

  • Politicizing the Justice Department
  • Ignoring Habeas Corpus enshrined in 1215
  • Ignoring the 4th Amendment (no one is against wiretapping calls, they just want warrants–even if the warrants can be granted retroactively)
  • Torture–something we specifically forbade because of a previous tyrant’s abuses
  • Issuing signing statements that directly contradict US Law
  • and more if you want

He’s not protecting the free world by damaging the rule of law.

But everything can be blamed on Bill Clinton

We knew that Nuclear Weapons in Pakistan were bad. At least I knew. Apparently, the Clinton administration had no strong feelings either way. On May 28, 1998 Pakistan announced that it had successfully conducted five nuclear tests You remember 1998. It was toward the end of the Clinton administration. Pakistan could have built nuclear weapons during the Reagan and Bush administrations. They did not. Again, we see that Bill Clinton is responsible for a major foreign policy blunder. This one could potentially result in thousands of American deaths.

Nice story, but it’s not true:

India’s 1974 testing of a nuclear “device” gave Pakistan’s nuclear program new momentum. Through the late 1970s, Pakistan’s program acquired sensitive uranium enrichment technology and expertise. The 1975 arrival of Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan considerably advanced these efforts. Dr. Khan is a German-trained metallurgist who brought with him knowledge of gas centrifuge technologies that he had acquired through his position at the classified URENCO uranium enrichment plant in the Netherlands. Dr. Khan also reportedly brought with him stolen uranium enrichment technologies from Europe. He was put in charge of building, equipping and operating Pakistan’s Kahuta facility, which was established in 1976. Under Khan’s direction, Pakistan employed an extensive clandestine network in order to obtain the necessary materials and technology for its developing uranium enrichment capabilities.

In 1985, Pakistan crossed the threshold of weapons-grade uranium production, and by 1986 it is thought to have produced enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon. Pakistan continued advancing its uranium enrichment program, and according to Pakistani sources, the nation acquired the ability to carry out a nuclear explosion in 1987.

Why Does Illinois Review Hate America?

Hello McFly

Markos in the Hill

For seven years, Americans outside Washington observed Bush and his Republican allies break every single promise they ever made to the American people.

They haven’t captured Osama bin Laden, dead or alive. They haven’t accomplished our mission in Iraq. They haven’t guaranteed insurance for millions of poor children. They haven’t “defend[ed] the Constitution of the United States” from attacks on our civil liberties.

Meanwhile, Bush and his svengali Karl Rove consistently achieved new heights of hyperpartisanship — always quicker to demonize the opposition than to compromise. So in 2006, the nation struck back with a resounding message — unitary Republican control was no longer acceptable. A wave of new Democrats was elected to oppose the Bush Republican agenda. House Democrats won the national vote by a solid 54-46, while Senate Dems crushed their Republican rivals, 54-42.

But D.C. is a funny place. No one seems to have gotten that resounding message, certainly not Bush and the new Republican minority. More surprisingly, Democrats also failed to get the message. On issue after issue, the Democratic norm has been to capitulate to the slightest pressure from the GOP. And while the public has meted record-low approval ratings for this Congress in response, the lesson apparently remains unlearned.

Whether it’s Iraq funding or the Michael Mukasey confirmation, Democrats continue to give away the store without receiving any concessions in return. It’s a one-way street in a town that has ceded Article I of the Constitution for a unitary, non-compromising executive. The public is sick of this administration’s betrayals. Why aren’t Democrats?