You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (50)
PLAYS: (153)
Conservatives virtually declared victory after forcing a moderate Republican out of a highly contested House race in upstate New York. The Republican candidate, Dede Scozzafava, withdrew Saturday virtually guaranteeing a win for Conservative Party Candidate Doug Hoffman in New York's 23rd Congressional district.
White House senior advisor Valerie Jarrett told ABC's George Stephanopolous that pressure on Scozzafava to drop out shows how conservatives are marginalizing moderates. "I think [the Republican Party is] becoming more and extreme and more and more marginalized," said Jarrett.
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (1434)
PLAYS: (3029)
Bill O'Reilly is "fascinated" with Sarah Palin, and has been featuring segments on her a lot of late. He had Glenn Beck on The O'Reilly Factor on Thursday night to talk about her prospects.
They agreed that her upcoming book tour is a "make or break" situation regarding her political future -- but that if she fares well with the media, she'll be well positioned for 2012. They also agree that resigning as governor before had even completed her first term was a "smart move."
Which gave Beck a launching pad for his prophesying mode:
Beck: Smart move. And I think she's also positioning herself for a third party. By the time this election runs around for the president, I'm sorry, but unless the Republicans and the Democrats wake up, a third party will win.
Presumably, by "wake up" Beck means "embrace the tea party philosophy of small government and big wingnuttery". The Democrats won't, but most likely the Republicans will. But I don't think it's going to be the recipe for victory Glenn Beck thinks it will be.
Joementum 2012?
Is he the greatest senator ever? He fought for victory in Iraq, he's fighting for victory in Afghanistan, and he's fighting to save us all from Obamacare. Who needs Olympia Snowe when you've got Joementum?
You may recall the above town hall video of Kansas Republican Lynn Jenkins laughing at a young, uninsured mother and telling her to grow up and get health insurance. Jenkins may be best known for her stunning gaffe in which she talked of the GOP searching for their "great white hope."
Seeing a major opportunity for victory in 2010, Democratic State Senator Laura Kelly has decided to throw her hat in the ring and has announced she will take on Lynn Jenkins:
Kansas State Sen. Laura Kelly, a Topeka Democrat, said Friday she'll run to unseat Republican U.S. Rep. Lynn Jenkins next year.
Democrats like their chances. It's a district that's gone both ways in the past few election cycles, and Jenkins, in her first-term, has had a gaffe or two. (Remember Jenkins' "great white hope" comment from two months ago?)
"Kansas families in the 2nd district deserve a representative who will energetically stand up for their most important concerns - their pocketbooks, their jobs, and their health care - not sit back and block progress in Washington," Kelly said in her campaign announcement.
"In the last few months people from all across the district have been urging me to run for Congress. They are tired of leaders tied to a do-or-die narrow partisan agenda that has failed our country for the last eight years. Saying NO is not enough in these challenging times. People deserve common sense answers and real solutions," she said. Read on...
Lynn Jenkins has been nothing short of an embarrassment to her state and our country and is extremely vulnerable. Click here to visit Laura Kelly's website, and if you like what you see and want to show her some love, donate if you can. Jenkins ranks near the top of the right wing nutjob heap -- let's send her packing.
That heavyweight intellectual, Jonah Goldberg, loves to tell his audiences that no one on the left took his masterpiece, Liberal Fascism, seriously -- they just made fun of it!
Evidently, Goldberg thinks that ignoring a sound argument lets you declare victory over it.
Now, just to be clear: Goldberg has never responded to the core of my critique. He's tossed off side issues, but what I have said about Liberal Fascismfrom the get-go is that its central thesis -- that "properly understood, fascism is not a phenomenon of the right at all. Instead, it is, and always has been, a phenomenon of the left" -- simply does not have any grounding in, and is indeed refuted by, the actual historical facts about the "political space" which fascism historically occupied.
This is, in fact, the argument that Goldberg attempts to make in his book as well: That the fascists occupied the "political space" on the Left, and thus were simply out to compete against their fellow leftists. But this is where Goldberg most deeply portrays a lack of respect for the historical material available to him, because any careful study of the actual details of how the fascists came to power in both Italy and Germany makes abundantly clear that they were occupying the available political space on the right -- and had charged hard in that direction from early on in their drive to power.
I discussed this in some detail, citing particularly Robert O. Paxton's work in The Anatomy of Fascism. Paxton, for instance, debunks the fascists' ostensible "anticapitalism":
The President had a big victory this week when the Senate voted to strip funding for additional F-22 fighter jets, which the Pentagon and the Air Force didn't want, which haven't been flown once in Iraq or Afghanistan and which are apparently vulnerable to rain. It was a small step toward breaking the stranglehold of the military-industrial complex. The lobbyists were out in force to keep this alive, and a lot of lawmakers who have parts of the F-22 made in their district wanted to keep the gravy train going, but eventually, sanity prevailed. The military budget is increasing this year, and eventually we have to end a circumstance where we spend more on the military than every other country in the world combined, but if we couldn't cancel the F-22, we would not be able to cancel pretty much anything. So it was a good step toward lessening the power and influence of military contractors. Robert Farley has a great roundup of opinions.
Naturally, John Cornyn (Bugfuck Crazy-TX) doesn't agree. In fact, he thinks we have to use the F-22 to counter all sorts of threats. Including... India.
"It's important to our national security because we're not just fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq," Cornyn says. "We're fighting -- we have graver threats and greater threats than that: From a rising India, with increased exercise of their military power; Russia; Iran, that's threatening to build a nuclear weapon; with North Korea, shooting intercontinental ballistic missiles, capable of hitting American soil."
I wasn't aware that we were at war with India. In fact, I don't get over there much, but I'm pretty sure we're an ally. In fact, Hillary Clinton just spent four days there this week. We just completed a civilian nuclear power agreement with them last year.
I guess being Republican means "never having to say you're sorry to an allied country for calling them an enemy." Remember when John McCain thought we were at war with Spain?
In case anyone hadn’t noticed, there is a war on. And when this nation is at war it has a tradition of pulling together in support of the troops. But as far as the campaign in Afghanistan is concerned there is precious little sign of that. The death toll of British troops there this week is horrendous.
And yet the Government has been put under almost no pressure to explain what our soldiers are doing and when it expects their mission to be completed.
Gordon Brown does not appear to know whether this war is worth prosecuting with the full might of the nation’s military resources or not. He has already turned down a request from Barack Obama to send significant reinforcements, while the shameful inadequacy of the equipment supplied to our soldiers has already been well documented. After the losses of the past few days, this half-hearted approach has become utterly unsustainable. Britain and indeed the whole of Nato must now decide whether this fiendishly difficult bid to tame a hitherto untamable land is worth all the blood that is being spilt.
This newspaper’s assessment is that the chance of outright victory in Afghanistan vanished the moment US and British forces went into Iraq. The focus on Afghanistan was lost and the coalition against terror broke up. There is now little prospect of the rest of Nato committing wholeheartedly to the fight against the Taliban. In a war of attrition, such as is presently being fought, victory will not be achieved, but heavy losses will certainly be sustained. Our brave soldiers deserve far better than that.
Wow...some honest assessment. Of course, it's not coming from our country, where we still hang on these nebulous phrases like "victory" and "security" without actually explaining what that means. Cernig at Newshoggers:
It was always the conservative establishment who were most against Britain's continued enmiring in Bush's Iraq occupation - and now it appears that conservatives will lead the way in calling for an exit from Afghanistan too. There's certainly a part of that which is just the cynical politics of opposition, but there's also a part that's just good sense. The British populace are, if anything, more generally accepting of foreign wars than their American cousins but there's a limit to what even the "fighting Blitz spirit" will countenance when a military entanglement has no plan, no metrics for success and no end in sight. The Tories are just getting out ahead of the curve.
Update: As Gordon Brown defends the UK's involvement and insists the Afghan war is being won (the credibility of that claim being dependent on how credible you think Brown is in general), renowned British military historian Correlli Barnett has an op-ed in the pages of the very conservative Daily Mail in which he argues that Britain must unilaterally withdraw from Afghanistan.
Why won't an American journalist confront the Obama administration and simply ask them, "How will we know when we've won?" Unless they can answer that in tangible terms, all we're doing is condemning more troops to death.
Right on cue, Rush Limbaugh attacks Al Franken's victory in Minnesota.
LIMBAUGH: Look at this. From Iran's press television, the state-run media in Iran: Ahmadinejad gains votes in recount, just like in our country! It had -- just like in our country. Norm Coleman wins in Minnesota in a recount, and they keep having recounts, and Al Franken wins. So they had the recount in Iran, and shazzam! Ahmadinejad gained votes!
Hmmm, what to say, what to say. Are we all living in Iran now?
I don't know what to say. Isn't rioting in the streets the appropriate reaction when your country is taken over through election fraud? What's the alternative, to reward theft? We've already seen what that did here!
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has defended his "completely free" re-election as Iran's president, amid violent clashes on the streets over claims of election fraud.
Mr Ahmadinejad condemned the outside world for "psychological warfare" against Iranians during the election.
Thousands have protested against the result, burning barricades on the streets of Tehran and clashing with police, who responded with tear gas.
Reformist candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi urged his supporters to avoid violence.
Speaking on national television, Mr Ahmadinejad praised the Iranian people for choosing to "look toward the future" rather than returning to the past.
"This is a great victory at a time and condition when the whole material, political and propaganda facilities outside of Iran and sometimes... inside Iran, were total mobilised against our people," he said.
He blamed "foreign media" for instigating a "full-fledged fight against our people".
"Nearly 40 million people took part in a totally free election," he said.
However, the official result, which gave Mr Ahmadinejad a resounding victory - 63% of the vote against 34% for Mr Mousavi - brought the worst violence seen in Tehran for a decade, correspondents said.
The BBC's John Simpson saw secret policemen being attacked and chased away by protesters, which he says is extremely rare.
Some of the protesters in Tehran wore Mr Mousavi's campaign colour of green and chanted "Down with the dictator", news agencies report.
You gotta love it when a long shot wins - and it wasn't even close. Creigh Deeds took 50 percent of the vote in a three-way primary. [Note for political junkies: McAuliffe beat Deeds in only one district, the 3rd - where he sent Bill Clinton to campaign for him in the African-American community.] Deeds, a well-liked and personable guy, is also moderately conservative. Watch as the Democratic-consultant lemmings everywhere decide this means he won because he's a conservative, not in spite of it, and start yanking candidates ever rightward:
R. Creigh Deeds, a longtime state legislator from rural Bath County, won a stunning come-from-behind victory in the Democratic primary for Virginia governor last night, overwhelming a pair of better-funded and better-positioned opponents.
Deeds beat Brian Moran and Terry McAuliffe in every region of the state, including vote-rich Northern Virginia, despite a pro-gun stance and relatively conservative positions that are out of line with many of the area's voters. His victory was so dominant that he captured 10 of the state's 11 congressional districts, including the one held by Moran's brother, U.S. Rep. James P. Moran Jr.
All three campaigns and state political experts had agreed that Deeds was coming on strong in the final days of the race, but no one expected him -- or the other candidates -- to come close to winning the 50 percent of the vote that he captured. In an e-mail sent to supporters less than two hours before polls closed, McAuliffe's campaign predicted that "this thing could come down to the wire." McAuliffe came in second, with 26 percent of the vote, followed by Brian Moran with 24 percent.
Deeds, 51, will face Republican Robert F. McDonnell in a general election battle that amounts to a rematch of the race for attorney general four years ago, which McDonnell barely won after a late surge by Deeds.
It's time for Gov. Pawlenty to certify Al Franken's victory so he can take his rightful seat in Congress. We are waiting for the Minnesota Supreme court to rule which is supposed to come in June. It's highly doubtful that they will overturn the election results so Americans United For Change produced this ad to let him know that we're watching. And the state of Minnesota is watching too.
According to the Star Tribune Minnesota Poll, nearly two-thirds of the 1,042 adults surveyed believe Norm Coleman should concede the race. A separate poll by the Alliance for a Better Minnesota shows about two-thirds of the 600 people polled believe the recount process was "fair, impartial, accurate, and carried out according to Minnesota law."
The findings come after Coleman filed an appeal with the Supreme Court, following a 3-judge panel's ruling that Franken won the Senate race by 312 votes. In his appeal, Coleman cites that there are over 4,000 rejected absentee ballots that should have been counted.
Political Analyst Ralph Doty, who himself voted for the Independent candidate, said at this point in the game, Minnesotans are being "deprived." Von Thill of Cloquet said he agrees. "There's more important things to get resolved right now, with the economy, and everything else."
Gov. Pawlenty can't succumb to pressure from the Limbaugh National Committee and keep obstructing him. If Norm Loserman wants to go to the Roberts Court, that shouldn't stop Gov. Pawlenty from signing off.
Call 800-657-3717 and tell him to certify Al Franken.
The majority of Iraq has voted in provincial elections today, with a very minimum of violence, as I had hoped. Which is great news but unsurprising given the massive security lockdown mounted for the event. Razorwire cordons, security checkpoints, closed airports and a total ban on vehicular traffic in cities - all just to have an election. Still, that it happened at all is encouraging, even if far from the shining victory the American right are hailing it as. I hate to rain on their victory parade but there are a couple of flies in their Mission Accomplished" ointment.
Not least, of course, that such elections might never have happened at all if the Bush administration had had its way. Despite the popularity nowadays of the conservative meme that Bush wanted to bring democracy to Iraq, Paul Bremer, head of the CPA, had wanted to simply keep US-appointed tame politicos in power. But Ayatollah Sistani demanded real elections with thinly veiled hints of a general Shiite insurrection to go with the Sunni-led insurgency if no elections were held, and a quick historical revision swifty ensued.
But there are still deep-seated problems in Iraq which these provincial election's won't touch, or will actually make worse. The Kurdish North didn't participate and neither did the disputed region of Kirkuk. Iraqi troops and Kurdish peshmerga have already faced off there a few times and most analysts see Kurdish aspirations as the primary future source of violence. Then there's the resurgent Sunni minority, where the old and entirely undemocratic tribal power structure is set to be the election winner. And among Shiites, factional infighting which has fractured Maliki's own coalition heavily, looks to be another potential source of future violence. We may not know the full results for a month or more and there are going to be divisive allegations of intimidation, vote-rigging and double-crossing to navigate.
These elections are a good thing, but they're not a universal panacea. Still, the American Right wants to have its cake and eat it. They want to pretend that provincial elections mean "victory" while getting ready to blame only Obama if Iraqi social fractures ignored by Bush for so long lead to more violence later.
this is the moment for which conservatives have been preparing for the last year and a half: sustaining the illusion of "victory" just long enough to be able to blame Democrats for "losing Iraq" when things go wrong. Get ready.
He's right, of course. The faction fights and social cracks in Iraq pretty much guarantee more violence at some point and it won't matter a damn how many US troops (or even whether there are any at all) are there or not when the next outbreak of Iraq's cyclical boodfeud hits. It might be Kurds vs Shia, Shia vs Sunni, Sunni "Sons" vs Sunni Iraqi Islamic Party or Shia Sadrists vs Shia Badrists - but it won't matter a damn to Republicans that all Bush and Petraeus ever did was paper lightly over those cracks, only enough to bring Iraqi violence down to a per-capita equivalent of a 9/11 a week. It's still true that the US needs to withdraw before those feuds that Bush blew the lid off by invading can finally resolve themselves and it's still true that, for pro-occupation conservative pundits, it'll still be Obama's fault.
(Even if the Iraqi leadership wants the US to leave.)
"There can be no long-term security and peace in the region without a stable, secure, prosperous and democratic Afghanistan," they said in a statement released after a one-day conference in Paris.
The envoys "expressed their support for existing initiatives to reinforce cooperation between Afghanistan and its neighbours (and) committed to the effective implementation of these initiatives."
But, apart from a vague agreement "to work more closely to strengthen border security as a key component of counter-narcotics and counter-terrorism," no concrete measures were announced.
All talk and no action, especially when you consider that the most significant neighbor, Pakistan, needs to be "a stable, secure, prosperous and democratic" nation first before Afghanistan can become one -- and no one has a blessed clue how to accomplish that in the teeth of an entrenched feudal and military elite who see Afghanistan as simply the biggest of their decades-long proxy battlegrounds with another neighbor, India. The third significant neighbor, Iran, didn't even turn up in Paris because Sarkozy was dumb enough to repeat the old lie about Ahmadinejad wanting to wipe Israel off the map. That'll help.
While the presidential candidates try to outdo each other on hawkishness on their Afghanistan/Pakistan policies and violence rises even further, the military seem to be the ones really running U.S. foreign policy in the region. And they're looking for a Grand Bargain.
This week's Sixty Minutes has eye-opening footage from a forward operating base in eastern Afghanistan, which includes up-close combat with Taliban militants.
The footage underscores what a recent draft of a National Intelligence Estimate called Afghanistan's "downward spiral", with a 30 percent increase in attacks in the last year.
These soldiers had not come this close to their enemy in Afghanistan before - close enough to lob hand grenades. Staff Sgt. Jake Schlereth had to crawl into a cornfield in pursuit. "You couldn't see [the enemy]…and…I had to get down on the ground and look and see if they were down there…you knew they were in there," he tells Logan.
At least twelve enemy fighters were killed in the skirmish and one U.S. soldier was wounded. The soldiers found a camera left behind by the enemy that contained images of at least 50 heavily armed fighters, showing details of their training and actual attacks. But it also showed enemy surveillance of U.S. soldiers on patrol. Says Capt. Thomas Kilbride, who leads such patrols, "This is showing a [U.S.] unit driving. I don't know if this is us or not." Does he think he and his men are being watched every time they go on patrol? "Oh, yeah," he says.
The images on the camera prove the enemy is better armed and organized. One of the men killed was carrying an identification card issued across the border in Pakistan. The U.S. military plans more fighting ahead in the winter months, when violence is usually less. "I'm here to predict this winter will be the most violent winter so far," says Gen. Schlosser.
