[Image via Flickr]

There's nothing to see here. Move along. Nothing, that is, but this report of a minor incident in Russellville, Arkansas: “Democratic Congressional candidate Ken Aden’s campaign manager returned home to find his family pet slaughtered, with the word 'liberal' painted on the animal’s corpse.”

A statement from the Aden campaign describes the cat as an adult mixed-breed Siamese and included a graphic description of the pet's injuries.

The statement said that the four children of campaign manager Jacob Burris “discovered the gruesome scene as they exited the family vehicle to enter their home” after “the perpetrators scrawled 'liberal' across the cat’s body and left it on the doorstep of Burris’ house."

“To kill a child's pet is unconscionable,” the candidate is quoted as saying.

I know, I know. It's not the most important story in the news this week. In a time of war and financial crisis, there are a lot bigger stories to report than the death of a house cat. It was just an ordinary pet like millions of others, a playmate to some children and a companion to their parents.

Nor is this an electoral scandal. The Aden campaign said they “did not believe the Womack campaign to be responsible,” adding that “before Christmas ... a (radio) station owned by Womack’s father, actually promoted a toy drive held by Aden’s campaign for children in the Third District.”

People, especially conservatives, will rush to say it's an isolated incident of random violence that could've happened to anyone. They've said that before. Lots of times, in fact.

The shooting of churchgoers at a liberal Unitarian church in Knoxville was an isolated incident.

The shooting of police officers in Pittsburgh was an isolated incident.

The shooting of deputies in Okaloosa, Florida was an isolated incident.

The killing of a Tucson man and the shooting of his wife and daughter (the nine-year-old was shot in the head at point-blank range) was an isolated incident.

The murder of an African-American woman and the raping and wounding of her sister, followed by the killing of a homeless man, was an isolated incident.

The killing of an African-American security guard at the Holocaust Museum was an isolated incident.

Except …

Continue reading »

This is a terrific, upbeat, positive ad for Democrat Scott McAdams, who is a far better choice for Alaska Senator than Joe Miller. It introduces him, gives some background, and portrays him as a "regular guy." Spread the word.

DOWNLOADS: (1036)

PLAYS: (1841)

Embed

Michele Bachmann and Hannidate had a wankfest over the mere thought that reconciliation might be used to pass health-care reform. Isn't it part of America's legislative process? Maybe Bachmann was talking about herself when she said members of Congress were anti-American.

Hannity: So, is the San Francisco Speaker, is she off-script, or is the bipartisan meeting that the president is orchestrating just a sham?

…

Hannity: Can we believe them? Are they just being disingenuous?

Bachmann: Well, that’s the question that we need to have addressed, because the president only let John Boehner, the Republican leadership, know that he wanted a health care summit just an hour he went on national TV with Katie Couric to announce this is what he wanted to do. No heads up, in effect. Then John Boehner sent a letter to President Obama, asking questions, ‘Are we going to start over? Or are we working off of your Democrat plan?’ The president was real clear – he said he plans to pass the Democrat plan, Robert Gibbs went to the microphone, said the same thing. And then as you said, Speaker Pelosi’s Number One health-care negotiator in the House said they’ve got a legislative trick, and they know exactly how they’re going to pass their plan. That’s after the president’s invitation. If they’re already saying they’re going to pass their bill, then what is this for, this summit?

…

Hannity: All right, so are you looking specifically for a promise? In other words, Mr. President, do you promise – and I saw the letter that John Boehner and Eric Cantor sent to the president – do you need a promise or a commitment that he will not use the reconciliation process before it would be wise enough to sit down?

Bachmann: I think the best negotiation would be one where the president says, ‘I will not use the reconciliation’ – the legislative trick, in the Democrats’ own vernacular. And where he says we’ll start from scratch, we’ll start over with a blank sheet of paper, and we’ll start new with our ideas and we’ll truly come together, with cameras, both sides, and come to a discussion. That’s really what the American people expect and that would be the best outcome.

Maybe Congress should just pass Paul Ryan's whacked out budget too.

IOKIYAR. Isn't that always the case? Ronald Reagan used reconciliation along with Clinton. George Bush used it to pas his tax cuts. And another of the wanker elitists is Judd Gregg who attacks it now but used it in 1994 for Newt and wanted to use it against ANWAR.

In 1994, he was a freshman Senator using budget reconciliation to move pieces of Newt Gingrich's Contract With America through the Senate. In 2005, he argued that budget reconciliation should be used to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.

And of course, George W. Bush made great use of the procedure with the help of Ben Nelson.

On May 26, 2001, Nelson was one of a dozen Democrats to support president George W. Bush's Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001: the massive tax cut package that defined the administration's plans for job growth. The bill was passed using reconciliation -- meaning it wasn't subject to a Democratic filibuster -- and received the support of 58 Senators. Two years later, Bush had introduced a second tax-cut package, this one entitled The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. That too was passed through reconciliation with Nelson's vote proving even more critical.

Elena Kagan has been confirmed by the Senate to become the newest Associate U.S. Supreme Court justice by a vote of 63-37. For the first time in history, three women will serve as Supreme Court justices at the same time.

As Senate confirmation battles go, this one was fairly low-key. Republicans spent a lot of time claiming she was anti-gun and pro-abortion, but with very little evidence to support their claims. The best they could do was to offer an argument about her lack of judicial experience -- an argument some Democrats also used against her.

The sole dissenting Democrat was Ben Nelson, who may call himself a Democrat, but never fails to bolster the Republican vote count. At the last minute, Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) announced his opposition to Kagan's nomination, resting on the "lack of experience" excuse, but really just buying some political cover back home.

More from the AP on Kagan here.

People For the American Way released this statement:

“Americans should be proud that Elena Kagan was confirmed to the Supreme Court today. She brings to the bench sterling credentials and a formidable intellect. Her commitment to the Constitution and equal justice under law will serve the Court well in the decades ahead

“During her hearings, Elena Kagan spoke powerfully about the Constitution as a timeless document, constructed by its framers to be interpreted over time in light of new situations and in new contexts. She articulated a view of the Constitution and the role of judges in sharp contrast to Chief Justice Roberts’ misleading analogy to an umpire calling balls and strikes. Solicitor General Kagan made clear that she has the intellectual fortitude and the command of the law to keep faith with our Constitution--its amendments, its history, and its core values like justice and equality under the law.

“Thanks to today’s vote, the Supreme Court will have three female Justices for the first time in our nation’s history. This is an historic step forward for all Americans, and an advancement of which every citizen should be proud.”

Update: Kagan will be sworn in at 2pm on Saturday at the Supreme Court.

Some good news for the people who were left hanging this month (but no new benefits tier to help those who ran out entirely). But at least this will help some people, and hopefully it will pass uneventfully:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Wednesday that the Senate would vote move forward with reauthorizing unemployment benefits on Tuesday morning, after the replacement for the late Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) has been sworn in.

Republicans and Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson have been preventing a final vote on the bill because of its $33 billion cost. Reid said the GOP filibuster, which has prevented more than 2.1 million people from receiving checks, is designed to crater the economy. "They're betting on failure. They think the worse the economy is come November, the better they're going to do election wise," said Reid. "Almost two million people who are long-term unemployed. These are not numbers. They are people."

Congress allowed extended benefits for people who've been out of work for longer than six months to lapse at the beginning of June. Since then Senate Democrats have repeatedly failed to muster 60 votes to overcome the deficit reduction demands of the Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and the Republican party. In the final vote just after Byrd's death at the end of June, Democrats came up just one yea short.

And in other news, all the Republican senators have embraced the formerly-deplored position of Jim "Tough S**t" Bunning. I think I will start referring to them as "T.S. Republicans."

However, most voters are on the side of those without work:

Two national polls released Tuesday revealed that registered voters think it's more important to help the unemployed than to reduce the deficit.

Voters are generally wary of government spending to boost the economy, but they nevertheless told ABC News and CBS News that the deficit is no reason not to help the unemployed.

Fifty-two percent of voters told CBS that Congress should extend unemployment benefits "even if it means increasing the budget deficit," including 35 percent of Republicans. Sixty-two percent of registered voters told ABC Congress should extend benefits despite concerns that doing so "adds too much to the federal budget deficit."

In a Bloomberg survey, 70 percent of voters said reducing unemployment is more important than reducing the deficit. But only 47 percent said Congress should reauthorize extended benefits, which in some states provided the unemployed with up to 99 weeks of checks.

A poll commissioned by the National Employment Law Project in June found that 74 percent of voters think helping the unemployed is more important than reducing the deficit.

Back in early 2008 when the primaries were heating up between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, a friend with contacts in high corporate places whispered a secret in my ear. The secret he told: Money sources will tighten and corporations will hoard cash in an effort to make whichever Democrat is elected a one-term wonder.

At the time I shook it off as wishful thinking. After all, he's one of those corporate guys, and saw the handwriting on the wall. Knowing he wouldn't get another Republican administration for awhile (If I had my way, it would be forever), he was just whispering silly scare threats in my ear to suppress any enthusiasm I might have had for a Democratic President.

Fast forward to July, 2010 and his words practically scream at me. Anyone who doubts what is happening in this country right now should go read Fareed Zakaria's column about why corporations are hoarding cash. Hoarding to the tune of nearly 2 TRILLION dollars, by the way.

Continue reading »

Kansas Republican Kevin Yoder is running for Congress, attempting to win a seat long held by Democrat Dennis Moore. In Yoder's new campaign advertisement you see him walking around on a farm with his wife and children and chatting at a diner with locals in what appears to be your garden variety ad. The problem is, according to The Pitch - Yoder and his wife have no children.

What a good-looking family. In his new campaign video for Congress, Kevin Yoder appears to have a photogenic, all-American brood: three adorable girls and a boy, who seem to embody the heartland values Yoder espouses in his new campaign video. Except those aren't Yoder's children.

If you just watched the video and didn't know any better, you'd think these were Yoder's kids. They're not. They're likely his nieces and nephew (or models hired for cuteness).

While misleading and creepy, that alone wouldn't be much of a story. But, thanks to a very observant blogger, we find out that Yoder not only hired other people's children to give the impression he was a "family man," he also hired right wing, anti-tax lobbyists and a Delta Dental executive to pose as regular, working folk:

But what Pitch didn't notice, but we at DOTR did, is that while the ad has plenty of other people's children, Yoder also gathered some of his favorite lobbyists to play "real people" for him to "meet" in a "diner."

Why there's Ken Daniel, the conservative anti-tax advocate, in the brown coat next to Yoder at 0:33. And that's Dan Murray at 0:59. You remember him - he's the Kansas director for the right-wing National Federation of Independent Businesses and a frequent Statehouse visitor.

Even former legislator and current Delta Dental insurance executive Dean Newton makes several appearances, bringing his whole family to "meet" Kevin at 1:03 before giving an unconvincing "I'm a Yoder voter" at 1:21. Read on...

Yoder's Democratic opponent is Stephene Moore (Dennis Moore's wife) and here is her website. If you're so inclined, click through and show her some love.

Santorum Scandal-Nazi references thrown at the NY Times

viaSwing State Project: Two major updates on the Santorum Scandal.

Chuck Pennacchio, Democrat challenging Santorum in 2006, has posted a startling video on his blog of Santorum using a Nazi slander against the New York Times.

The Anti-Defamation League is outraged

Check out Bob's post on this.

For a man who opposes the use of Nazis references, Santorum sure likes to use them.

Digby torches Ricky: Ricky In Paris: So, we have both Byrd and Santorum making references to Hitler as regards this rules change. One is barely comprehensible and posits an absurd analogy to Democrats being Hitler in Paris. The other quite astutely points out that these arbitrary rules changes to advance the power of one party are not without precedent.

God Bless This Mess

Ezra Klein talks about a new ABC pilot that has Drudge (and the Drudgekateers) up in arms. Commander-in-Chief, starring Democrat activist Geena Davis as the President of the United States, for the fall schedule.

Jesse Taylor talks about it here: You do, however, have to love the unironic link to the Newsmax summary of the Joe Klein article in which Klein points out that it might be a bad idea for Hillary to run because publications like Newsmax will go batshit crazy.

There Are More Bankruptcy Filings During Conservative Presidencies Conservative Truths
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2003 the years where a Republican President was in office show a higher total rate of Bankruptcy Petition Filings than when a Democratic President was in office.

In 1998, when Democrat William Jefferson Clinton was President, the Total Number of Bankruptcy Petitions Filed was 1,429,459.

In 1999, when Democrat William Jefferson Clinton was President, the Total Number of Bankruptcy Petitions Filed decreased to 1,391,964.

In 2000, when Democrat William Jefferson Clinton was President, the Total Number of Bankruptcy Petitions Filed further decreased to 1,276,922.

In 2001, when Republican George Walker Bush was President, the Total Number of Bankruptcy Petitions Filed increased to 1,386,606.

In 2002, when Republican George Walker Bush was President, the Total Number of Bankruptcy Petitions Filed further increased to 1,505,306.

Source: 15-business.pdf No. 756