|
BUSH WATCH...PROGRESSIVE NEWS AND OPINION papers | most mailed | archives | yesterday | today | today's earlybird | today's update | home | contact MAINSTREAM FEEDS TO BUSH WATCH: | Opinion | New York Times | Washington Post | Los Angeles Times | Boston Globe | USA Today | Christian Science Monitor | Baltimore Sun | Chicago Tribune | San Francisco Chronicle | Lehrer Newshour | Slate | ABC Politics | Reuters Politics | Google | Toronto Star | Guardian (UK) | Independent (UK) | Internation Herald Tribune | Deutsche Welle | Der Spiegel | PROGRESSIVE FEEDS TO BUSH WATCH: | Common Dreams Opinion | Common Dreams News | The Nation | Village Voice | Salon | Mother Jones | Working For Change | AlterNet | Tom Paine | Crooks and Liars | Daily Kos | In These Times | Democracy Now! | Huffington Post |COLUMNISTS' FEEDS TO BUSH WATCH: | Benedetto | Broder | Cohen | Dionne, Jr. | Durst | Froomkin | Gonsalves | Goodwin | Hightower | Hoagland | Huffington | Ignatius | Ivins | Jackson | Kamen | King | Kinsley | Margolis | Meyerson | Milbank | Minbiot | Morsford | Scheer | Solomon | tba | If your favorite columnist is unlisted and has an rss feed, please provide details. |
The Nation: Top Stories Lawyers, Terror & Torture 11 Mar 2010 at 3:58pm David Cole Liz Cheney's witch hunt against lawyers who represented Guantánamo detainees is a new low.
Congress Votes for Afghan War 11 Mar 2010 at 3:58pm Tom HaydenOnly 65 members of the House voted with Kucinich to force withdrawal from the Afghan war. The outcome makes the anti-war forces appear weaker than they are.
A Body on the Gears: On Mario Savio 18 Feb 2010 at 2:36pm Scott SaulAt Berkeley in 1964, Mario Savio embodied the need to speak and act in the face of doubt. Barry Schwabsky: On the Black Atlantic
The South Africa World Cup: Invictus in Reverse 11 Mar 2010 at 10:00am
83% of MoveOn Members Back Obama on Health Reform 11 Mar 2010 at 4:18pm
Bernie Tells It Like It Is 11 Mar 2010 at 4:18pm
Why Democrats Should Pick a Fight on Immigration 10 Mar 2010 at 11:11am
them.ws The Nation: All Weblogs Ever since Barack Obama's inauguration, progressives have been able to point to one segment of the traditional media that consistently bears witness to the depth of change implied by the Democratic landslide: the chastened demeanor of George Will on ABC's 'This Week with George Stephanopoulos'. Particularly obvious whenever Nobel Prize-winning economist and 'New York Times' columnist Paul Krugman is on hand to call Will on his donnish prevarications, the change has nonetheless been unmistakable over time and provided the show's real "Sunday Funnies" for lots of us, as this clip from Stephen Colbert last month makes clear: The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30cGeorge Will's Long Tiewww.colbertnation.comColbert Report Full EpisodesPolitical HumorU.S. Speedskating Of course, chipping away at Will's certitude is intrinsically funny because of his magisterial, always unsmiling manner--it's like teasing a pinched and grumpy-looking hedgehog with a sharp stick. Read More ...
The Beat: In a Big-Issue Week, Joblessness Remains the Biggest Issue by John Nichols 2 Dec 2009 at 11:05am The official unemployment rate of 10.2 percent is the worst in a quarter century. The real unemployment rate of 17.5 percent -- the Department of Labor figure that includes the long-term unemployed and the seriously under-employed -- is edging toward Depression-era levels. In several regions of the United States -- Michigan, parts of Ohio and Indiana, stretches of New England and the rural south, historically depressed urban areas -- the jobless figures are so acute that they have become the definitional social, economic and political concern. Read More ...
The Dreyfuss Report: Exit: 2011? by Robert Dreyfuss 2 Dec 2009 at 9:40am Is he lying to us? When President Obama talks about withdrawing US forces from Afghanistan in July, 2011, does he mean it? Or is that a clever ruse in order to blunt criticism from the left, and from congressional Democrats, of his decision to escalate the war? Personally, I'm willing to take him at his word. Why? Because Obama is doing in Afghanistan exactly what he said he'd do during the campaign, after his election, and after taking office. And I don't think he's doing it primarily for political reasons, either. Having had lengthy discussions with many, perhaps most, of Obama's advisers on Afghanistan and Pakistan over the past two years, it's clear to me that those adivsers believe passionately that vital US interests are at stake in that conflict. It's no surprise that they've convinced Obama, too. That's not to say that Obama, before last night's speech, wasn't under intense political pressure to jack up the war. The generals, especially David Petraeus, the Centcom commander, and Stanley McChrystal, the commander in Afghanistan, made no bones about what they wanted, and it was clear that Petraeus and McChrystal weren't shy about making common cause with the Republicans and the neoconservatives. And plenty of hawkish Democrats, including the ever-reliable Representative Ike Skelton, felt the same way. It's tempting to argue that Obama could have faced all of them down had he decided to draw down US forces, but that he lacked the political courage. After reviewing all of the evidence, I don't agree that the president was acting out of a lack of courage. I think that his decision to surge US forces in Afghanistan reflects a mature, considered decision on his part to do what he thinks is the right thing. (Unfortunately, it's wrong.) Read More ...
The Beat: Obama Has Spoken; Now, Let's Have a Debate by John Nichols 1 Dec 2009 at 10:49pm President Obama delivered a carefully-constructed and nuanced call Tuesday night for the extension of the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan. Obama came to the wrong conclusion about a military adventure that should be coming to a conclusion, rather than ramping up. But Obama's attempt to find a middle ground between anti-war forces and supporters of a Iraq-style occupation at least recognized that the debate over Afghanistan has many sides and many players. At times, Obama seemed so tortured in his attempt to placate both those who want to send more troops (he's dispatching an additional 30,000) and those who want a bring-the-troops-home exit strategy (he says they will start coming home in 2011) that his speech had the ring of Greek tragedy – or, perhaps, "fall of the Roman Empire" history. Unfortunately, there has been nothing artful about the media coverage of Obama's speech. Read More ...
The Notion: Psalm 137 by The Nation 1 Dec 2009 at 9:47pm I was in a pew at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, Illinois, on September 16, 2001. Although I was never a member of this now infamous congregation, I did attend Trinity regularly during the seven years I lived and worked in Chicago. September 16, 2001 was the first Sunday after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington, DC. On that Sunday Reverend Jeremiah Wright preached a sermon whose often-distorted excerpts became fodder for attack on candidate Barack Obama. Most people in America remember it as the "Chickens Coming Home to Roost" sermon. For me, Wright's sermon on that Sunday will always be the sermon of Psalm 137. Read More ...
The Notion: From Grant Park to Afghanistan: Obama's Defining Moment by The Nation 1 Dec 2009 at 8:56pm When Barack Obama gave his victory speech on election night last November, he picked Chicago's Grant Park – the legendary site of the battle between anti-war demonstrators and Chicago cops during the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in 1968. According to campaign manager David Axelrod, Obama chose Grant Park to "symbolically overcome the damage done to American idealism forty years before." In 1968, Grant Park had dramatized the fratricidal split between Democrats over Vietnam. On the night of Nov. 4, 2008, Obama was suggesting all that had come to an end. The party was united and victorious. But Obama's speech tonight at West Point, announcing the escalation of the American war in Afghanistan, raised anew the specter of Grant Park in 1968. Once again a Democratic president is making a deeper commitment to an unwinnable war. Read More ...
The Notion: Not Just Jobs Needed Now by The Nation 1 Dec 2009 at 5:15pm In advance of the president's jobs summit, economist Paul Krugman is finally calling for government job-creation. "It's time for at least a small-scale version of the New Deal's Works Progress Administration" writes Krugman. He says it "would offer relatively low-paying (but much better than nothing) public-service employment." That's probably not what the Obama administration has in mind. They and Congress seem set instead on relying on the private sector and re-asserting Democrats' fiscal conservative bona fides before next year's vote. Read More ...
Act Now! : Escalation Equals Insecurity by Peter Rothberg 1 Dec 2009 at 10:35am White House officials announced yesterday that President Obama has decided to deploy 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan within the next six months, nearly tripling the American military presence in Afghanistan that the president inherited when he took office. Obama will explain his decision in a much-hyped address at West Point tonight. This seems crazy to me. Can't see how it can possibly end well. To cite Malalai Joya, the youngest woman elected to the Afghan Parliament , writing recently in 'The Guardian', "by installing warlords and drug traffickers in power in Kabul, the US and Nato have pushed us from the frying pan to the fire. Now Obama is pouring fuel on these flames, and this week's announcement of upwards of 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan will have tragic consequences." If you agree with Joya, as I do, there are a range of groups trying to build peace and security in Afghanistan. . Read More ...
AlterNet Blogs: Speakeasy Democracy Now!
MoJo Articles | Mother Jones Even staunch conservatives lately have been calling Liz Cheney out for going too far: calling the DOJ the "Department of Jihad" for having the poor judgment to provide legal defense to Gitmo prisoners. (So much easier to just drown them.) Ken Starr and Lindsay Graham have been trying to distance themselves from the Cheneys, explaining that legal representation is an essential part of the US criminal justice system. I remember Liz and Dick in that brilliant film version of "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" They played a twisted, foul-mouthed couple in a spectacular insult marathon. You can't look...and you can't look away. No Comments | Post CommentRepublicans Against Majority Rule by Mark Fiore 11 Mar 2010 at 1:23pm //Here are the variables used by the MJ_media_tags function: // CLSID, CODEBASE, ObjectID, WIDTH, HEIGHT, URL, QUALITY, BGCOLOR, PLUGINSPAGE MJ_media_tags("clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000", "http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0", "fiore", "525", "440", "/files/majority_player.swf", "high", "#FFFFFF", "http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer"); This cartoon requires Macromedia's Flash Player. If you don't see the cartoon above, download the player here. Mark Fiore is an editorial cartoonist and animator whose work has appeared in the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Examiner, and dozens of other publications. He is an active member of the American Association of Editorial Cartoonists, and has a web site featuring his work. 1 Comment | Post CommentHow Your Twitter Account Could Land You in Jail by Matthew Power 11 Mar 2010 at 7:00am On the afternoon of September 24, 2009, Pennsylvania State Troopers, their guns drawn, broke down the door of room 238 of the CareFree Inn on the outskirts of Pittsburgh. The troopers were acting on a search warrant related to protests planned for the G20 summit—a meeting of the heads of state of the world's major economies. Thousands of protesters had descended on the city, presenting demands ranging from curbs on carbon emissions to the outright abolition of capitalism. Anticipating hordes of black-masked, Starbucks-smashing anarchists, the Pittsburgh police and the Secret Service coordinated nearly 4,000 law enforcement officers, outfitting them with the latest in riot-dispersal technology. Crowds marching on the summit were met with pepper spray, stun grenades, and—for the first time on US soil—acoustic cannons that blast painful sounds as far as 1,000 feet. But the protesters had their own crowd-control methods, and that's what had brought the state troopers to the CareFree Inn. What they found when they broke down the door were a couple of middle-aged housemates from Queens, New York. Elliott Madison sat at a desk with a laptop and a cell phone. A police scanner lay nearby. Michael Wallschlaeger was at the minifridge grabbing some hummus when the police rushed in. According to the criminal complaint filed against them, the two men had been "communicating with various protestors, and protest groups...[via] internet based communications, more commonly known as 'Twitter'. The observed 'Twitter' communications were noted to be relevant to the direction of the movement of the Protestors...in order to avoid apprehension..." Continue Reading » 6 Comments | Post CommentHow Corporations Hide Election Spending by Chisun Lee 10 Mar 2010 at 2:46pm This story first appeared on the ProPublica website. The Supreme Court recently freed corporations to spend more money on aggressive election ads. But if businesses take advantage of this new freedom, the public probably won't know it, because it's easy for them to legally hide their political spending. Under current disclosure laws for federal elections, it's virtually impossible for the public to track how much a business spends, what it's spending on, or who ultimately benefits. Experts say the transparency problem extends to state and local races as well. "There is no good way to gauge" how much any given company spends on elections, said Karl Sandstrom, a former vice chairman of the Federal Election Commission and counsel to the Center for Political Accountability. "There's no central collection of the information, no monitoring." Companies invest in politics to win favorable regulations or block those "that could choke off their business model," said Robert Kelner, chairman of Covington & Burling's Washington, D.C., political law group. But they'd rather hide these political activities, he said, because they fear backlash from customers or shareholders. Continue Reading » 1 Comment | Post CommentPremature Withdrawal by Tom Engelhardt 10 Mar 2010 at 1:56pm This story first appeared on the TomDispatch website. Hubris? We're bigger than that! We've now been at war with, or in, Iraq for almost 20 years, and intermittently at war in Afghanistan for 30 years. Think of it as nearly half a century of experience, all bad. And what is it that Washington seems to have concluded? In Afghanistan, where one disaster after another has occurred, that we Americans can finally do more of the same, somewhat differently calibrated, and so much better. In Iraq, where we had, it seemed, decided that enough was enough and we should simply depart, the calls from a familiar crew for us to stay are growing louder by the week. The Iraqis, so the argument goes, need us. After all, who would leave them alone, trusting them not to do what they've done best in recent years: cut one another's throats? Modesty in Washington? Humility? The ability to draw new lessons from long-term experience? None of the above is evidently appropriate for "the indispensable nation," as former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright once called the United States, and to whose leaders she attributed the ability to "see further into the future." None of the above is part of the American arsenal, not when Washington's weapon of choice, repeatedly consigned to the scrapheap of history and repeatedly rescued, remains a deep conviction that nothing is going to go anything but truly, deeply, madly badly without us, even if, as in Iraq, things have for years gone truly, deeply, madly badly with us. Continue Reading » No Comments | Post CommentJohn Yoo's Email Fail by Nick Baumann 10 Mar 2010 at 6:00am The Justice Department report released last month on the crafting of the so-called torture memos contained a number of eyebrow-raising revelations—but none perhaps as intriguing as the disclosure that many of John Yoo's emails had been irretrievably destroyed. Given that the former Justice Department political appointee played a key role in composing the legal rationale for the Bush administration's use of brutal interrogation tactics, this seemed suspicious, and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and others have pressed the agency to investigate. But Yoo has brushed aside concerns about his emails, and he has criticized those raising questions about the lost messages—including Leahy and Justice Department investigators—for their weak grasp on the "basics of intelligence." Yoo's own explanation for the missing emails, though, doesn't add up, and experts on government archiving and recordkeeping practices say his comments are misleading, if not "nonsensical." Continue Reading » 15 Comments | Post CommentWas Waxman-Markey A Waste of Energy? by Kate Sheppard 9 Mar 2010 at 6:00am In early March, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) dropped some surprising news: The effort to tackle global warming via a cap-and-trade scheme is officially "dead." Graham, John Kerry (D-Mass.), and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) will soon release details of an alternative plan for a bill to curb carbon emissions, which is expected to cobble together policy proposals from various lawmakers in the hopes of picking up a filibuster-proof 60 supporters. So, where does that leave the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade legislation that squeaked through the House last summer by a single vote after months of convoluted dealmaking? No one really knows—and some House Democrats are none too happy about the Senate's change of direction. For almost a decade, cap and trade has been viewed as the approach with the best shot of making it into law. The idea is that the government imposes a cap on polluters, and those companies who emit too much can buy permits from companies that produce less than their limit. Nearly a year ago, Reps. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) introduced legislation to the House that sought to enact such a system. Months of torturous negotiations followed, in which major energy interests scrambled to grab a piece of the pie. Continue Reading » 26 Comments | Post CommentThe New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander 8 Mar 2010 at 2:15pm This story first appeared on the TomDispatch website. Ever since Barack Obama lifted his right hand and took his oath of office, pledging to serve the United States as its 44th president, ordinary people and their leaders around the globe have been celebrating our nation's "triumph over race." Obama's election has been touted as the final nail in the coffin of Jim Crow, the bookend placed on the history of racial caste in America. Obama's mere presence in the Oval Office is offered as proof that "the land of the free" has finally made good on its promise of equality. There's an implicit yet undeniable message embedded in his appearance on the world stage: this is what freedom looks like; this is what democracy can do for you. If you are poor, marginalized, or relegated to an inferior caste, there is hope for you. Trust us. Trust our rules, laws, customs, and wars. You, too, can get to the promised land. Perhaps greater lies have been told in the past century, but they can be counted on one hand. Racial caste is alive and well in America. Most people don't like it when I say this. It makes them angry. In the "era of colorblindness" there's a nearly fanatical desire to cling to the myth that we as a nation have "moved beyond" race. Here are a few facts that run counter to that triumphant racial narrative: Continue Reading » 18 Comments | Post Commentthem.ws
them.ws WorkingForChange In These Times Daily Kos Tom Engelhardt writes Premature Withdrawal: Washington’s Cult of Narcissism and Iraq:
We’ve now been at war with, or in, Iraq for almost 20 years, and intermittently at war in Afghanistan for 30 years. Think of it as nearly half a century of experience, all bad. And what is it that Washington seems to have concluded? In Afghanistan, where one disaster after another has occurred, that we Americans can finally do more of the same, somewhat differently calibrated, and so much better. In Iraq, where we had, it seemed, decided that enough was enough and we should simply depart, the calls from a familiar crew for us to stay are growing louder by the week. The Iraqis, so the argument goes, need us. After all, who would leave them alone, trusting them not to do what they’ve done best in recent years: cut one another’s throats? Modesty in Washington? Humility? The ability to draw new lessons from long-term experience? None of the above is evidently appropriate for "the indispensable nation," as former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright once called the United States, and to whose leaders she attributed the ability to "see further into the future." None of the above is part of the American arsenal, not when Washington’s weapon of choice, repeatedly consigned to the scrapheap of history and repeatedly rescued, remains a deep conviction that nothing is going to go anything but truly, deeply, madly badly without us, even if, as in Iraq, things have for years gone truly, deeply, madly badly with us. An expanding crew of Washington-based opiners are now calling for the Obama administration to alter its plans, negotiated in the last months of the Bush administration, for the departure of all American troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. They seem to have taken Albright’s belief in American foresight -- even prophesy -- to heart and so are basing their arguments on their ability to divine the future. The problem, it seems, is that, whatever may be happening in the present, Iraq’s future prospects are terrifying, making leaving, if not inconceivable, then as massively irresponsible (as former Washington Post correspondent and bestselling author Tom Ricks wrote recently in a New York Times op-ed) as invading in the first place. Without the U.S. military on hand, we’re told, the Iraqis will almost certainly deep-six democracy, while devolving into major civil violence and ethnic bloodletting, possibly of the sort that convulsed their country in 2005-2006 when, by the way, the U.S. military was present in force. ... In Iraq, only one thing is really known: after our invasion and with U.S. and allied troops occupying the country in significant numbers, the Iraqis did descend into the charnel house of history, into a monumental bloodbath. It happened in our presence, on our watch, and in significant part thanks to us. But why should the historical record -- the only thing we can, in part, rely on -- be taken into account when our pundits and strategists have such privileged access to an otherwise unknown future? In the year to come, based on what we’re seeing now, such arguments may intensify. Terrible prophesies about Iraq’s future without us may multiply. And make no mistake, terrible things could indeed happen in Iraq. They could happen while we are there. They could happen with us gone. But history delivers its surprises more regularly than we imagine -- even in Iraq. In the meantime, it’s worth keeping in mind that not even Americans can occupy the future. It belongs to no one. • • • • • At Daily Kos on this date in 2006: Until recently, Claude Allen was the Assistant to the President of the United States for Domestic Policy. Allen is, or was, one of the darlings of the religious right led by the likes of James Dobson and his Focus on the Family. Allen was a big abstinence only crusader and led several assaults on AIDS service organizations as well. This paragon of moral values was recruited by Karl Rove. A couple of days ago, Claude Allen was arrested in connection with a massive shoplifter and refund operation.
Open Thread and Diary Rescue by Diary Rescue 11 Mar 2010 at 11:16pm Tonight's Rescue is brought to you by Got a Grip, ItsJessMe, jlms qkw, Shayera, watercarrier4diogenes, and YatPundit, with ybruti editing. zenbassoon focuses on the lives and works of female composers, in Weekly Concert--International Women's Day Edition. (ItsJessMe)terryhallinan examines a couple of vehicles powered by heaping piles of...various stuff...in Biomass Is Developing A Head of Steam. (YatPundit) hiphoplawyers outlines how corporate influence has led to a culture of Legal Abandon: How Corporate Tort Reform Trashed the Economy. (Got a Grip) BorderJumpers tells us about someone who is one of only five opposition voices in a country of thirteen million people, in In Zimbabwe, the Voice of the Worker. (ItsJessMe) otto shares the joy of identifying what he loves and then doing it in Teaching is my Life and My Job. (Got a Grip) rturner229 shares A tribute to a middle school principal. (shayera) MsSpentyouth describes a conversation with a health care consultant, in Q: "Who's your medical provider?" A: Schrödinger's Cat. (ItsJessMe) veritas curat ponders the cost of our societal bent toward greed and instant gratification as it pertains to Justice and Population Biology. (Got a Grip) In response to veritas curat's diary, vahana unites some hard realities and their possible solutions in "Justice and Population Biology" and HCR. (jlms qkw) jotter has High Impact Diaries: March 10, 2010. IrishPatti has tonight's Top Comments Attack of Insomnia Edition. Please join us in this open thread by suggesting your own favorite diaries from today and sharing the latest news.
Stars on Ice Is Anti-Family by BarbinMD 11 Mar 2010 at 10:30pm Disgusting: Glaad reports that sponsors have “refused to allow” American figure skater Johnny Weir to join the Stars on Ice Tour because they deemed him “not family friendly.” While Weir — a three-time national champion — has never “officially announced his sexual orientation, he has garnered a significant amount of LGBT fans” and is also known for his flashy costumes. Weir won an online poll that asked fans who they wanted to see in the tour, but Stars on Ice seems to have barred him because of his “perceived sexual orientation”. And as is so often the case, bigoted homophobes wouldn't know family-friendly if it bit them on the ass: To say that Weir is “not family friendly” would be a clear jab at his perceived sexual orientation. Weir is extremely involved with his family. He is putting his younger brother through college, and supports the family financially because his father’s disability prohibits him from working. Weir’s dedication to his family can be clearly documented in the Sundance series, Be Good Johnny Weir, which follows him and his family and friends through his life and career as a championship skater.
Senate Passes Jobs Bill by mcjoan 11 Mar 2010 at 9:46pm In case you missed it, the Bunning travesty of last week ended relatively happily yesterday, at least in the big picture of Senate battles. The Senate approved $140 billion in extended tax breaks and unemployment benefits on Wednesday in a largely partisan vote. The bill was approved on a 62-36 vote, with six Republicans joining most Democrats in backing it.... Most of the cost in the bill approved by the Senate goes toward prolonging increased levels of federal unemployment aid and COBRA healthcare benefits for the jobless through the end of December. The cost of those extensions is about $80 billion. The House has some issues with this bill, namely that it doesn't include the infrastructure spending and aid to states and localities that were included in the $154 billion bill passed last December by the House, and that it relies heavily on tax cuts. Reid says he will bring up a jobs bill that includes those measures eventually, but given the pace of the Senate, the House seems skeptical. As for the bill the Senate just passed, "Rep. Sandy Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said it’s “an open question” whether House members will force a conference to resolve differences between the two chambers." But what the forward movement on this bill shows is that, at least on jobs, Republican obstruction can be broken.
MoveOn membership: Pass the bill by Jed Lewison 11 Mar 2010 at 9:00pm Greg Sargent gets the results of MoveOn's survey of its membership on whether MoveOn should support passing President Obama's health care reform plan: Should MoveOn support or oppose the final health care bill if it looks like the plan recently proposed by President Obama? Support - 83% That's about as emphatic an endorsement as you're going to see. Now it's up to the House and the Senate to finish up their work and get this thing passed into law.
NV-Sen: Ensign, Emails, And The F.B.I.'s Criminal Probe by BarbinMD 11 Mar 2010 at 8:20pm It looks like the F.B.I.'s criminal probe of John Ensign (R-NV) is bearing some fruit: Previously undisclosed e-mail messages turned over to the F.B.I. and Senate ethics investigators provide new evidence about Senator John Ensign’s efforts to steer lobbying work to the embittered husband of his former mistress and could deepen his legal and political troubles. Mr. Ensign, Republican of Nevada, suggested that a Las Vegas development firm hire the husband, Douglas Hampton, after it had sought the senator’s help on several energy projects in 2008, according to e-mail messages and interviews with company executives. The messages are the first written records from Mr. Ensign documenting his efforts to find clients for Mr. Hampton, a top aide and close friend, after the senator had an affair with his wife, Cynthia Hampton. They appear to undercut the senator’s assertion that he did not know the work might involve Congressional lobbying, which could violate a federal ban on such activities by staff members for a year after leaving government. According to Ensign's spokeswoman: Senator Ensign has consistently acted in an ethical manner to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. No word on whether Mrs. Ensign agrees. And for more on John Ensign's woes, check out Steve Benen's excellent article on the traditional media's double standard when it comes to Republican sex scandals.
Late afternoon/early evening open thread by Jed Lewison 11 Mar 2010 at 7:40pm
Dems will Move Ahead on HCR without Stupak by mcjoan 11 Mar 2010 at 6:50pm In the best news all day category, House leadership has washed their hands of Stupak. There really wasn't any way around it, since he refused to budge. But it also suggests that leadership doesn't think the 12 supporters Stupak has claimed are firm in their support of him. Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman of California, chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, said the leadership will press ahead without reworking the abortion provision adopted by the Senate. Abortion opponents say the provision falls short in restricting taxpayer dollars for abortion coverage. Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., has been pushing for stricter provisions and says he and a dozen or so abortion opponents would vote against the health care bill if the Senate's version is retained. Leaders will try to peel off some of those lawmakers and make up for any remaining deficit with Democrats who opposed the health care legislation on the first round, when it passed 220-215. "Many of the pro-life members are going to support passage of the health care bill," Waxman predicted. "They're either satisfied enough with the Senate provision, or they decide that that's as much as they're going to get and they don't want to defeat health care." Dday has been keeping a whip count and has the current numbers at 189 yes, 202 no. With Massa's resignation, the magic number in the House is 216.
| ||