Jack Kelly Sunday

It's been a while for me - I trust you've been happy with Ed Heath's weekly takedown of Jack Kelly. I have.

But this week's column by Jack Kelly is something special. So many falsehoods/spins/manipulations that I just had to write something.

Let's begin. Here's Jack's opening:

Former Vice President Al Gore went on a profanity-laced tirade at the Aspen Institute Aug. 4 against the rising number of Americans who are skeptical about man-made global warming.

According to a Harris poll in July, only 44 percent of us now believe carbon dioxide emissions are warming the Earth, down from 51 percent in 2009 and 71 percent in 2007.

Global temperatures peaked in 1998. People have noticed winters are getting colder.

You can read about it here. We have to issues here. The reality of the climate and what large chunks of people believe to be the reality of the climate.

Two different things.

First, about that poll. All that says is that fewer people believe the science to be true than in the past (and gee, could that have something to do with all the bought and paid for misinformation flying around?). Luckily we do not live in a postmodern world where the perception of reality is the same as reality. In 2002, 74% answered "Believe" when asked the question:

Do you believe the theory that increased carbon dioxide and other gases released into the atmosphere will, if unchecked lead to global warming and an increase in average temperatures, or not?

Does that mean the science was 30% more true then? No? Then the point about how that poll validates the science is absurd.

But then we get to Jack's first true distortion of reality - that global temperatures peaked in 1998.

According to NOAA (where the real climate scientists do real climate science work):

Combined global land and ocean annual surface temperatures for 2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest such period on record at 1.12 F (0.62 C) above the 20th century average. The range of confidence (to the 95 percent level) associated with the combined surface temperature is +/- 0.13 F (+/- 0.07 C).

And here's what NASA (another buncha scientists - but what do THEY know??) said about 2005 back in 2006:

Climatologists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City noted that the highest global annual average surface temperature in more than a century was recorded in their analysis for the 2005 calendar year.

And then:

Previously, the warmest year of the century was 1998, when a strong El Nino, a warm water event in the eastern Pacific Ocean, added warmth to global temperatures. However, what's significant, regardless of whether 2005 is first or second warmest, is that global warmth has returned to about the level of 1998 without the help of an El Nino.

I used to ask this alot: Can't someone over at the P-G FACT-CHECK Jack Kelly? He's still embarrassing himself and by association, the paper.

Jack continues:

When evidence emerged in 2009 that scientists affiliated with the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Britain were "hiding the decline" by fudging data, few journalists paid much attention.

Actually lotsa journalists paid attention. Just like the journalists who paid attention to the evidence that showed that the climate scientists did not "fudge the data". Like at The Hill:

A Commerce Department inspector general investigation into the “Climategate” controversy finds that government scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration did not manipulate climate change data.

P-G fact-checkers? Hello?

Jack then rattles off some "inconvenient facts" (or should I call them "facts"?) that are really Non sequiturs :

In the Medieval Warm Period (950-1250 AD), and the Roman Warm Period (250 BC-400 AD), there were no automobiles or factories, but temperatures were warmer than now.

And:

In geologic history, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were much higher, but temperatures often were lower. In the Late Ordovician Period, CO2 concentrations were 12 times higher than they are today. The Late Ordovician Period was an ice age.

Do I need to point out that the Ordovician Period was about 488 million years ago? When the chemistry of the planet was vastly different?

But what of that "Medieval Warm Period"? Here's Raymond Bradley of the University of Amherst Climate System Research Center:

It is often stated that climate in Medieval time was warm, or warmer than “today”. Such a statement might seem innocuous – a mere scientific curiosity -- but it has wider significance. For those opposed to action on global warming, the climate in Medieval time has become a cause célèbre. If it was warmer than today in Medieval Time, it could not have been due to fossil fuel consumption, and therefore (the argument goes) this demonstrates that warming in the last century may have been just another natural fluctuation that does not warrant political action on curbing fossil fuel use. Although this is a logically inconsistent argument, it has achieved remarkable traction in political circles, requiring that the issue be carefully re-examined. Actually three issues are involved: the timing of any unusual temperature anomaly, its magnitude relative to “today” and its geographical extent. The latter is especially important because advocates of a warm episode in Medieval time commonly attribute it to solar forcing, arguing that total solar irradiance was as high in Medieval time as in the 20th century, with the implication that 20th century global warming was largely driven by solar forcing, not greenhouse gases.

And then he concludes:

Careful analysis, unfettered by pre-conceived ideas, reveals no prima facie case for a globally extensive, synchronous warm period in Medieval time.

Again, a climate scientist.

Jack Kelly - not a scientist. Not even a good science writer.

I could go on but even though it's not the darkest evening of the year, I still have miles to go before I sleep.

Again P-G, fact check Jack Kelly. He's an embarrassment.

Ilya Somin Reponds!

That was fast!

Today, Professor Ilya Somin responded to my blog post of this morning.

Hello Volokh readers!

From his opening:

The implication is that the media must disclose any connections, however indirect, that an expert has with politically motivated funders of any kind. Being an adjunct scholar at Cato is an unpaid position that doesn’t give Cato any control over my research (or me over theirs) — much less giving any such control to individual Cato donors. If that is going to be the standard, it should be applied consistently across the board.

For example, most major universities get funding from liberal foundations such as the Ford Foundation and the MacArthur Foundation, and often also from individual liberal donors such as George Soros. Many of the liberal legal scholars who are quoted in the media in support of the individual mandate are affiliated with the American Constitution Society, which also gets some of its funding from Soros (full disclosure: I’ve spoken at several ACS events myself). Some of them also blog at liberal legal blogs, such as Balkinization.

All I'd have to say to the first sentence is this: Well yea.

And did you catch the ending of the second paragraph? When he discloses that he's spoken at ACS events?

Full (or at least fuller) disclosure is a good thing. Too bad it just doesn't happen on the pages of the Tribune-Review.

Let's do a little thought experiment. Since George Soros is mentioned in Somin's response, let's start there.

Suppose George Soros owned the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. And then suppose the editorial page of the P-G quoted (or perhaps just interviewed someone who writes for it) Media Matters, a left leaning news fact-checking organization that Soros has given a million dollars to. Now suppose they did that without disclosing those financial connections. What do you think would happen then?

This is my point.

Craig Smith Does It Again

And that "it" means "withholds important information from his audience."

Take a look at this in today's Tribune-Review:

Ilya Somin is an associate professor at George Mason University School of Law. His research focuses on constitutional law, property law and the study of popular political participation and its implications for constitutional democracy.

The name sounded familiar so I looked him up on 2PJ and found this.

While his description above seems politically neutral (he's just described as "an associate professor at George Mason University School of Law") parts of Somin's bio was conveniently omitted by the Scaife-employed Craig Smith.

Somin is also an Adjunct Scholar at the Scaife-funded Cato Institute - and from that page we also learn that Somin blogs at the conservative/libertarian Volokh Conspiracy.

However brilliant Professor Somin may be, politically neutral he isn't. Smith should have pointed out Somin's connections to the political right.

Also omitted, of course, are the millions of dollars Smith's boss Richard Mellon Scaife has shuffled of to Cato, where Somin's a scholar.

Another lesson (actually it's the same lesson, only resubmitted) on how the Right Wing Noise Machine works.

Hershey’s Sour Kisses

Hershey's is exploiting international students and, as a bonus, denying Pennsylvanians jobs.

Hundreds of international students signed up for a special U.S. State Department approved visa program designed to promote cultural exchange and international understanding. However, once here, they found themselves working long hours packing chocolates instead of working in a public position. But the exploitation goes further. First they paid $3,000-6,000 for the “opportunity” to work for Hershey. Then they were forced to live in company housing and also were charged for other expenses leaving most of the students with $40 to $140 per week after 40 hours of work. On top of that, when they complained about their working conditions they were threatened with deportation.

You can click here to send a message to John Bilbrey, Hershey Company CEO, that we won't stand for this.

You can also go to Market Square today at 12:30 PM where One Pittsburgh, community supporters and guestworkers from the Hershey plant in Palmyra will be performing a short skit to "inform people during their lunch-break of the exploitation the guest workers faced at the hands of Hershey."
.

Tom Coburn: "Good thing I can’t pack a gun on the Senate floor"

Via Politico:

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) ripped his colleagues during a tour of northeast Oklahoma, calling them “career elitists,” “cowards” and said, “It’s just a good thing I can’t pack a gun on the Senate floor.”

Coburn’s gun-on-the-floor comment comes less than a month after Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) made a triumphant return to the Capitol and the House floor following an assassination attempt in January outside a Tucson supermarket.

Gun-happy Coburn is both a doctor and a Southern Baptist deacon and, of course, is rabidly "pro-life." He may be best known for his involvement in the John Ensign scandal at the infamous C Street House where he helped in the cover up of the affair. Coburn claimed there was doctor/patient privilege involved. Coburn is an obstetrician. As far as is known, Ensign does not have a uterus.

As a congressman, he made news by protesting a televised airing of Schindler's List, saying it was "an all-time low, with full-frontal nudity, violence and profanity" and that the airing of the movies was "irresponsible sexual behavior. I cringe when I realize that there were children all across this nation watching this program." (As opposed to the children all across the country hearing a US Senator wanting to shoot his colleagues...)

Another day, another bit of elminationist rhetoric from a Republican.
.

I didn't know we were up for this, but now that I do: Please vote for us!

"CBS Pittsburgh's
Most Valuable Blogger Awards 2011
Everything Else:

2 Political Junkies"

Vote here:
http://pittsburgh.blogger.cbslocal.com/most-valuable-blogger/vote/misc/

(And, then click on "Local Affairs" and vote for The Pittsburgh Comet.)

UPDATE: Uh oh! I see That's Church is in the same category. Never mind.

UPDATE #2: Apparently, there's also an "Editor’s Choice" award in each category (rules here), so vote for us daily until September 9th. Thanks!
.

Rally at Toomey's Office at Noon Today

Sen. Pat Toomey (Tea Party-PA) is a favorite son of both the Club for Growth and the teahadists. Pennsylvania's junior Senator believes in magic -- he believes that tax cuts create revenue. Not only did he sign Grover Norquist's anti tax pledge and voted no on raising the debt ceiling, he believes the best course of action during the 2008 financial meltdown would have been to do nothing and let the chips fall where they may.

Of course, this meant that he was deemed to be eminently qualified to become a member of the "Super Congress."

If you believe that what Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and the country needs is jobs and not tax cuts. If you believe that the past decade of tax cuts for the "job creators" has only made the rich richer and not produced the promised jobs. If you believe your own lying eyes and not the smoke being blown up your ass, then this rally is for you:

August 2011 Recess Action
Station Square - Toomey's Office
100 West Station Square (Map)
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Thursday, August 18th, 12:00 PM
This action is being sponsored by many groups including MoveOn, OnePittsburgh, We Are One, Democracy for Pittsburgh, and, undoubtedly many more.

There's strength in numbers -- join us!

Many of the groups are meeting at the Stattion Square T station at 11:45 to walk over together.

Also, if you listened to Lynn Cullen's show yesterday, you know to expect to see her and Pittsburgh City Paper Editor Chris Potter there too.
.

Now...About That Bus

Yet another constructed scandal by the rightwing press. It's even made it into an editorial cartoon at the Tribune-Review:


Ha. Funny.

Mediamatters has a whole page of criticisms from the Sean Hannity and other wing nuts - "It's a waste of tax payer money!" they charge. "It's MADE IN CANADA!" the cartoonist asterixes.

But there are two of them. Did you know that? Probably did.

But did you also know that:

The vehicle was commissioned by the Secret Service, which has always hired buses for election campaigns and retrofitted them to provide suitable protection for presidents and rival party nominees.

But the Service decided to commission its own vehicles, reasoning that the initial total outlay of 2.2 million dollars for two buses would soon pay for itself over a projected 10-year lifespan.

Because:

In the past, those tours were a big headache for the service. The process started with a commercial tour bus and a renovation process that put the old TV show Pimp My Ride to shame.

"It was extremely expensive to lease one of these buses and then put in proper armoring, proper communications equipment," says former Secret Service Director Ralph Basham, who's now with Command Consulting Group. "And then at the end of the contract you had to restore these buses back to their original state."

Oh! So they're for presidential elections (among other things)! So once the Republican candidate is set, he/she will get one of the buses for the campaign!

You didn't see that in the cartoon, did you?

And where did these two buses come from? Canada, right? Not exactly:

The government bought the two coaches for $2.2 million from retailer Hemphill Brothers Coach, based in Tennessee. It installed custom interior upgrades into the Prevost shell, which accounted for about half the cost.

And would it surprise you to learn that the Hemphill Brothers (Joel and Trent) are campaign donors - to Republican candidates?

• Joel Hemphill in 2006 $7,100 to Republican candidates
• Joel Hemphill in 2004 $2,000 to Bush Cheney
• Trent Hemphill in 2010 $3,000 to Republican candidates
• Trent Hemphill in 2006 $3,100 to Republican candidates
• Trent Hemphill in 2004 $4,000 to Bush/Cheney

So if the coaches were constructed in Canada (and it looks as though they were), then we have a company in Red State Tennessee owned by two Republican campaign donating brothers that outsources work to foreign employees.

And pointing out where the buses were made is a criticism of the Obama Administration?

Funny what the Trib (and the rest of the right wing media) leave out, huh?

Dan Savage Redefines "Rick"

And so in Savage's own words:

Now "Rick Santorum" isn't just a vile and disgusting politician—he's a vile and disgusting sentence.

What is it, you ask?

I'm getting to that. It's in today's Savage Love column.

A letter writer wrote in to the column with this:

If you do end up having to redefine the word "rick," which you threatened to do in your recent Funny or Die video, I have a suggestion: rick (v): to remove santorum orally. ("He was so grateful for the lay that he ricked his partner.")

To which Dan agreed. Hence the above sentence "Rick Santorum."

Though Savage fiddles the definition a little:

That said, I don't think someone would rick his or her partner out of gratitude; ricking someone—sucking the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex out of someone's ass—is something a person would do only under duress or under orders from a cruel BDSM top.

Rick Santorum - ew, yuck.

More On Rick Santorum's View On Slavery

What is it about the wingnuts and Slavery?

First we had Michele Bachmann. According to Rich Lizza's piece in the New Yorker:

In “Christianity and the Constitution,” the book she worked on with Eidsmoe, her law-school mentor, he argues that John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and John Adams “expressed their abhorrence for the institution” and explains that “many Christians opposed slavery even though they owned slaves.” They didn’t free their slaves, he writes, because of their benevolence. “It might be very difficult for a freed slave to make a living in that economy; under such circumstances setting slaves free was both inhumane and irresponsible.”

I mean The Bible does allow for slavery, doesn't it? - Just not cruel slavery (Leviticus 25:44-46):

If you want slaves, buy them from other nations or from the foreigners who live in your own country, and make them your property. You can own them, and even leave them to your children when you die, but do not make slaves of your own people or be cruel to them.

So as long as you don't whip them or anything, slavery's OK, I guess. Responsible thing to do, even, since setting them free in a bad economy would only make things really bad for them.

That's freedom and slavery for Michele Bachmann, winner of the Iowa straw poll for the Republican Nomination for the President of the United States.

Then there's Rick Santorum, one of the losers. Thinkprogress has video of our favorite ex-Senator discussing freedom:


Their transcript:

Our founders said [our] rights were given to us to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Does anyone here believe that first inalienable right is as whole as it was at the time of our founding? It isn’t. Does anyone believe that our freedom is as whole as it was at the time of our founders? It is not. [bold in original]

From the top of the field to the bottom: for the GOP, slavery was no big deal. Not even worth mentioning when cheering on the great traditions of America.

I guess the GOP doesn't count human slavery as the affront to human freedom that it so obviously is.

New Rick Perry Campaign Ad!

Remember, this is a guy who even the Bush people think is shallow. Which I assume means he should have a great shot at being nominated (and possibly elected).

[sigh]




(h/t to Spork).

More On Dominionism

I take Tony Norman's column as a start - this specifically:

The first time I ever heard of the Christian Reconstruction movement, now known as Dominionism, I thought it was a gag.

Who in their right mind wanted to live in a world where the Old Testament civil and ceremonial laws would become the template for local and national politics? It was a profoundly dark theology even by the standards of the dour Calvinism I considered reasonable at the time.

According to the tenets of Christian Reconstruction, it was up to Christians to bring the whole world into submission to Jesus Christ. Once that was accomplished (with God's help, of course), the Old Testament laws that guided ancient Israel would be dusted off and applied to civil societies across the globe, including America.

He then goes on to outline some of the scarier parts of this scary stuff and ends not with a whimper but with a bang:

Today, two of the leading Republican presidential candidates, Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, reportedly have ties to the Dominionist movement. The press has got to get up to speed on the movement's ideas before either a President Bachmann or a President Perry are in a position to drag Jesus feet first out of heaven, again.

Allow me to do my part.

Michelle Goldberg over at The Daily Beast has more on Dominionism:

Dominionism derives from a small fringe sect called Christian Reconstructionism, founded by a Calvinist theologian named R. J. Rushdoony in the 1960s. Christian Reconstructionism openly advocates replacing American law with the strictures of the Old Testament, replete with the death penalty for homosexuality, abortion, and even apostasy. The appeal of Christian Reconstructionism is, obviously, limited, and mainstream Christian right figures like Ralph Reed have denounced it.

Rushdoony was a piece of work. As Frank Schaefer points out:

Rushdoony (whom I met and talked with several times) believed that interracial marriage, which he referred to as "unequal yoking," should be made illegal. He also opposed "enforced integration," referred to Southern slavery as "benevolent," and said that "some people are by nature slaves." Rushdoony was also a Holocaust denier.

And yet his home school materials are a mainstay of the right-wing evangelical home school movement to this day. In Rushdoony's 1973 book, The Institutes of Biblical Law, he says that fundamentalist Christians must "take control of governments and impose strict biblical law" on America and then the world.

Back to Goldberg with more on Michele Bachmann:

For believers in Dominionism, rule by non-Christians is a sort of sacrilege—which explains, in part, the theological fury that has accompanied the election of our last two Democratic presidents. “Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ—to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness,” wrote George Grant, the former executive director of Coral Ridge Ministries, which has since changed its name to Truth in Action Ministries. “But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice ... It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time ... World conquest.”

Bachmann is close to Truth in Action Ministries; last year, she appeared in one of its documentaries, Socialism: A Clear and Present Danger. In it, she espoused the idea, common in Reconstructionist circles, that the government has no right to collect taxes in excess of 10 percent, the amount that believers are called to tithe to the church. On her state-senate-campaign website, she recommended a book co-authored by Grant titled Call of Duty: The Sterling Nobility of Robert E. Lee, which, as Lizza reported, depicted the civil war as a battle between the devout Christian South and the Godless North, and lauded slavery as a benevolent institution. “The unity and companionship that existed between the races in the South prior to the war was the fruit of a common faith,” the book said.

We wrote about the Lee biography here.

Does Goldberg have more on Rick Perry? She certainly does:

In elaborating Bachmann’s Dominionist history, though, it’s important to point out that she is not unique. Perry tends to be regarded as marginally more reasonable than Bachmann, but he is as closely associated with Dominionism as she is, though his links are to a different strain of the ideology.

How? She cites this piece in the Texas Observer by Forrest Wilder. Goldberg continues:

The Christian Reconstructionists tend to be skeptical of Pentecostalism, with its magic, prophesies, speaking in tongues, and wild ecstasies. Certainly, there are overlaps between the traditions—Oral Roberts, where Bachmann studied with Eidsmoe, was a Pentecostal school. But it’s only recently that one group of Pentecostals, the New Apostolic Reformation, has created its own distinct Dominionist movement. And members see Perry as their ticket to power.

“The New Apostles talk about taking dominion over American society in pastoral terms,” wrote Wilder in the Texas Observer. “They refer to the ‘Seven Mountains’ of society: family, religion, arts and entertainment, media, government, education, and business. These are the nerve centers of society that God (or his people) must control.” He quotes a sermon from Tom Schlueter, New Apostolic pastor close to Perry. “We’re going to infiltrate [the government], not run from it. I know why God’s doing what he’s doing ... He’s just simply saying, ‘Tom I’ve given you authority in a governmental authority, and I need you to infiltrate the governmental mountain.”

According to Wilder, members of the New Apostolic Reformation see Perry as their vehicle to claim the “mountain” of government. Some have told Perry that Texas is a “prophet state,” destined, with his leadership, to bring America back to God. The movement was deeply involved in The Response, the massive prayer rally that Perry hosted in Houston earlier this month. “Eight members of The Response ‘leadership team’ are affiliated with the New Apostolic Reformation movement,” wrote Wilder. “The long list of The Response’s official endorses—posted on the event’s website—reads like a Who’s Who of the apostolic-prophetic crowd, including movement founder C. Peter Wagner.”

While it's the Republican Party that's otherwise up in arms about Islamic Sharia law taking over the Constitution, isn't it funny (just SOO FUNNY) how they're not so upset about the Christians who want to do the same?

A New Tack

We've spent some time here at 2PJ tracking the Scaife support given to think tanks mentioned in specific Tribune-Review editorials - for instance, yesterday.

But today I thought I'd try another strategy. How do things look if we look at all the editorials/opinion pieces published in one day?

So let's start.

This editorial about unemployment compensation, Scaife's braintrust cites the Cato Institute.

According to mediamatters, that's:

• $245,000 from the Scaife-controlled Carthage Foundation.
• $2,037,500 from the Scaife-controlled Sarah Scaife Foundation.

This opinion piece which chastises George Soros for, among other things, supporting the "openly leftist Open Society Institute" is by Mattew Vadum of the Capital Research Center.

According to mediamatters, that's:

• $225,000 from the Scaife-controlled Carthage Foundation.
• $4,675,000 from the Scaife-controlled Sarah Scaife Foundation.

This opinion piece by Colin McNickle, yet another anti-CFL bulb diatribe, cites the Manhatan Institute.

According to mediamatters, that's:

• $693,000 from the Scaife-controlled Carthage Foundation.
• $3,815,000 from the Scaife-controlled Sarah Scaife Foundation.

This piece by John Stossel cites the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

According to mediamatters, that's:

• $60,000 from the Scaife-controlled Carthage Foundation.
• $2,865,000 from the Scaife-controlled Sarah Scaife Foundation.

This piece is by Arnaud de Borchgrave of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

According to mediamatters, that's:

• $100,000 from the Scaife-controlled Allegheny Foundation.
• $50,000 from the Scaife-controlled Carthage Foundation.
• $10,148,000 from the Scaife-controlled Sarah Scaife Foundation.

This piece by Tom Purcell cites Reason Magazine, which is published by the Reason Foundation.

According to mediamatters, that's:

• $366,000 from the Scaife-controlled Carthage Foundation.
• $2,016,000 from the Scaife-controlled Sarah Scaife Foundation.

Whew.

If my math is correct, that means that over the years the Scaife-controlled Allegheny, Carthage and Sarah Scaife Foundations have given about $27.3 million to the various think tanks cited on today's op-ed pages alone.

Had he not given that support, those think tanks would look vastly different. They might not even exist. And yet he did and they do and his op-ed page cites them with no mention of all that money.

Tell me again how there's no vast right-wing conspiracy.

Uh-oh.

Data from our statcounter, a few minutes ago:

Visitor Analysis & System Spec
Referring URL: (No referring link)
Host Name: cbcp3.dhs.gov Browser: IE 8.0
IP Address: 216.81.81.83 — [Label IP Address] Operating System: WinXP
Location: Fort Washington, Maryland, United States Resolution: Unknown
Returning Visits: 0 Javascript: Disabled
Visit Length: 2 seconds ISP: Department Of Homeland Security

We got visited by HOMELAND SECURITY????

Uh-oh.

Scaife Funded Judicial Watch Spins On Voter "Fraud"

From today's Tribune-Review:

Documents obtained by Judicial Watch show the perniciously corrupt, leftist influence of ACORN and its Project Vote affiliate on voter registration in Colorado.

Alleging violation of a federal law requiring public-assistance offices to offer registration, the groups threatened litigation in 2009. The Democrat then-secretary of state, backed by leftist billionaire George Soros and liberal MoveOn.org, responded by, among other things, sharing registration data with Project Vote and ensuring its approval of changes to registration forms.

The result? In 2009-10, 8 percent of Colorado registration forms rejected as invalid or duplicate -- thus fraudulent -- came from public-assistance agencies. That was more than four times the national 1.9-percent average.

I guess they gotta do this once a month or so. Last month (July 17th to be exact) they wheel-barrowed out some horse crap that included James O'Keefe's "research" into ACORN. On that blog post we reported:

According to Media Matters, the Scaife controlled Carthage and Sarah Scaife foundations granted $8.74 million dollars between 1997 and 2009.

Far more than any other foundation. In fact, if my math and the numbers are correct, Scaife's given about 20 times more than all the other foundations combined.

So while Scaife's braintrust uses phrases like "backed by leftist billionaire George Soros" we should all try to remember that when the braintrust quotes Judicial Watch or The Heritage Foundation or The American Enterprise Institute or the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy, each of those think tanks are "backed by rightwing billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife."

But back to the Scaife-funded Judicial Watch spin. Beyond the absurdity of pointing out how Colorado's voting registration system rejecting invalid registration forms is evidence of how far:

ACORN, Project Vote and their successor organizations would not go to undermine voting's integrity.

But what of that 8 percentage rejection rate? Surely that's evidence of fraud, right? The editorial even says that invalid and duplicate registration forms are fraudulent. This takes a little digging. The Scaife braintrust's editorial points back to this page at the Scaife funded Judicial Watch. And here is the important paragraph:

As a result of this collaboration between ACORN, Project Vote and Colorado officials, the number of voter registrations at Colorado public assistance agencies rose from 3,340 in 2007 to almost 44,000 in 2010. (In a February 15, 2011, email to Project Vote, Christi Heppard, Special Projects Coordinator for the Elections Division of the Colorado Department of State, wrote, “…I think you will be pleasantly surprised by the numbers.”) However, the collaboration also led to a large number of invalid and duplicate voter registrations. A total of 8% of rejected registration forms came from public assistance agencies in Colorado in 2009-2010. This is more than four times the national average of 1.9% for that same time period.

Judicial Watch is usually meticulous with its linkage. But this time, not so much.

For instance, where do they get the "8 percent" data point anyway? That bit of information can be found via that last link - but it takes some hunting to get to - something the braintrust probably doesn't want you to do.

The link leads to this report by the US Election Assistance Commission. It's on page 52 where we find that 8 percent of the voter registration forms, 1681 in real numbers, were regarded as "Invalid or Rejected."

And how does this report define "Invalid or Rejected"? Oh, my friends, this is where the fun is. On the very next page we read:

Invalid registrations in Colorado include incomplete or pending applications where the elector has omitted a required piece of information.

No way to tell how much of what's left over is, as Scaife's braintrust so courageously declared, fraudulent.

See how it works? Scaife supports a think tank that spins and hides some very important details and then his newspaper's editorial board reports that spin as the truth.

How's that for fraudulent?

FIXED (Or At Least Explained)

Remember this?

It's about the PADems google ad that seems to point no where.

Late this morning I was contacted by a representative of PADems with an explanation of the google ad. Google, I was told, requires a URL to be listed in its ads but they give next to no space for that URL. The space alotted was waaaay to small for what was needed here.

The ad itself is address specific and links to an online petition demanding that they do the right thing and that the money reimbursed for those ALEC events be re-reimbursed to the tax payers. The ad never not worked if you were able to click it.

So if you lived in Mike Turzai's district and you clicked on the ad, you'd be taken to this petition.

So if you lived in Daryl Metcalfe's district and you clicked on the ad, you'd be taken to this petition.

I checked both links - they both work. Nice that things worked out.

Can Someone Fix This PLEASE?

This isn't helping, guys. You have to know that.

A few days ago, on August 9, John Micek over at Morning Call reported that the State Democratic Party:

... has launched a series on online advertisements attacking House Majority Leader Mike Turzai, R- Allegheny, and other GOP lawmakers for billing the taxpayers for their membership in right-leaning legislative think-tank called The American Legislative Exchange Counci

Good. Glad to hear it. Important story - transparency is all-important when the crafting of legislation is involved.

So what's the problem?

The ad itself, which looks like this:
Now try going to the site mentioned in the ad. As of 7:30 this morning 3 days after Micek's report, it's still showing a "page not found" message at padems.com.

Surely someone can slap together a press release to post there.

Hey, how about something like this?

GOP Used Taxpayer Dollars for Membership Dues, over $30,000 on Chicken Breasts and Lollipops

Harrisburg, PA - Today, Pennsylvania Democratic Party Chairman Jim Burn called on Republicans in the state legislature to reimburse taxpayers for the money they gave to an extreme right wing organization, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). As reported by Salon, many Republican lawmakers, including House Leader Mike Turzai, use taxpayer dollars to pay their membership dues and the Republican caucus spent $50,000 to cater a conference for ALEC in Philadelphia.

I didn't write that, by the way, I found it at padems.com. Easy enough to link to that page. Why hasn't someone done it yet?

Will Rogers was right.

Mitt Romney: "Corporations are people, my friend"

Making the Founders proud!

Mike Doyle Talks To Chris Potter

In this week's City Paper (available everywhere that's anywhere) Chris Potter does what I did a week or so ago - he talks with Congressman Mike Doyle.

Of course, Chris writes it better - the rat bastard.

And they discuss our current political climate:

Most Americans were appalled by the months-long fiasco. And while cuts could have been worse -- programs like Medicare and Social Security are protected, for now -- the debt ceiling has never been used as political leverage before. With the tactic's success proven, future hostage-taking seems likely.

But if you ask Congressman Mike Doyle (D-Pittsburgh), the problem isn't that democracy doesn't work. It's that only one side is working at it.

"If I held a town-hall meeting," says Doyle, conservatives "would have no trouble turning out hundreds of people. They'd travel in from outside the district just to say, ‘Hi.'" By contrast, "There isn't a Republican in the area that has received that type of pressure. … If liberals don't like what the tea-party movement is doing to the country, they need to start showing up in droves. And then you'll see people starting to show the courage we wish they would have."

In droves.

Go read Potter, it'll do ya good.

More On Michele Bachmann and Slavery

GOP front runner and Tea Party darling Michele Bachmann in the news these past coupla days regarding this Newsweek cover:

From the Washington Post blog:

As soon as Newsweek tweeted this week’s cover of the magazine, featuring a particuarly bad picture of presidential candidate Michele Bachmann, bloggers were up in arms.

NewsBusters argued that Newsweek intentionally chose a photo that made Bachmann look “crazy.” Slate asked whether the picture showed the magazine was “sexist.”

And so on. The charges and counter charges (and their defenses) will quarantine not a small amount of the news cycle. Which is a pity because there's another Bachmann story that might not get the air time it should because of it.

Bachmann's views on antebellum slavery. From Adam Swerver at the American Prospect:

Ryan Lizza's profile of Bachmann reveals that Bachmann's odd perspective on slavery isn't a series of gaffes, but rather "a world view." Lizza explains that Bachmann is a believer in a kind of Christian conservative reimagining of slavery, where "many Christians opposed slavery" but owned them anyway and didn't free them because "“it might be very difficult for a freed slave to make a living in that economy; under such circumstances setting slaves free was both inhumane and irresponsible.” How charitable of them!

Wait, there's more:

She is also a fan of Robert E. Lee biographer J. Steven Williams, (sic) whom Lizza describes as a "leading proponent of the theory that the South was an orthodox Christian nation unjustly attacked by the godless North." Wilkins "approvingly" cites Lee's conviction that abolition was premature because it was necessary for "the sanctifying effects of Christianity” to take their time “to work in the black race and fit its people for freedom.”

Actually it's J. Steven Wilkins but that's besides the point. What did have to say about antebellum slavery? You have to read it for yourself:

Slavery, as it operated in the pervasively Christian society which was the old South, was not an adversarial relationship founded upon racial animosity. In fact, it bred on the whole, not contempt, but, over time, mutual respect. This produced a mutual esteem of the sort that always results when men give themselves to a common cause. The credit for this startling reality must go to the Christian faith

And they're worrying about the photo making Bachmann look crazie?

More On ALEC Defenders

I normally don't comment on letters to the editor (as I figure everyone's entitled to their own opinion) but when the letter writer's a legislator who's a member of the American Legislative Exchange Council and the letter in question is defending ALEC, well I gotta. I just gotta.

Here's the letter:

ALEC's mission

As the national chairman of the American Legislative Exchange Council, I want to respond to "Analysis Finds State Legislation Copied From D.C. Group" (Aug. 3). ALEC is a transparent, nonpartisan, 501(c)3 organization dedicated to advancing the principles of free markets, limited government and individual liberty.

ALEC is a resource for state legislators across the country to find sound policy solutions to today's complex issues with a primary focus on fiscal responsibility and economic growth in each policy area. ALEC believes a vibrant private sector is good for the economy and job creation and, when faced with policy decisions that have an enormous effect on our society, legislators should hear from those who are affected. No one would consider writing an education bill without talking to teachers, or health care legislation without talking to doctors. So why would we do it in any other area?

The simple fact is that no matter what we discuss at a conference, we each have to make a decision whether it is good for the people we represent. If so, whatever may begin as a model bill must go through the legislative process unique to each state. The bills are subject to legal review, committee hearings, amendments and floor debate before legislators vote to reject or adopt it and a governor signs it into law.

It's an entirely democratic and transparent process and to suggest otherwise misleads the public.

America is a representative democracy and legislators are elected by the people to represent the people. As state legislators, we try to find the best solutions to growing the economy, creating jobs and utilizing taxpayer dollars effectively and efficiently. ALEC helps us fulfill this goal.

REP. NOBLE ELLINGTON
National Chairman
American Legislative Exchange Council
Washington, D.C.

I see the word "transparency" twice. First that ALEC is a "transparent" organization and second that it's part of a "transparent" process that's unquestionably democratic.

Really?

Then why is the membership private? Then why is the "model legislation" section of ALEC's website kept only for the private membership?

Who funds ALEC? Who drafts the "model legislation"? And finally who are its members who are are also elected officials from Pennsylvania?

IF the organization is transparent, THEN we'd have an answer to at least some of these questions. Since we don't we can't agree with the noble legislator from ALEC when he asserts (incorrectly, as it turns out) that ALEC is a transparent organization.

Think Progress has some evidence for who funded ALEC's recent convention in New Orleans. Given the "pro-business" stance of ALEC, it's hardly surprising that these three corporations would be supporting the convention at the President's Level:

• BP
• Reynolds American
• Takeda Pharmaceutical

Didn't BP have a little oil spill close to New Orleans some time ago?

I seem to recall something about that in the news.

Then there's the Chairman Level:

• Allergan
• Altria
• American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity
• American Electric Power
• AT&T
• Bayer
• Chevron
• ExxonMobil
• EZCorp
• Lumina Foundation
• Peabody
• PhRMA
• Shell
• State Farm
• State Policy Network
• UnitedHealthcare
• Visa
• Walmart
• Walton Family Foundation
  

And so on. Big Oil, Health Insurance, "Clean" Coal - who'da thought that they'd what to influence statewide legislation?

"Tea Party! America Thanks You!" Video

Ricky Santorum vows campaign will not fade away

Desperately seeking attention and a resurrection of his moribund presidential campaign, Lil Ricky Santorum (R-VA) has decided that the one thing "The Day the Music Died" needed was some santorum. Early rockers Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens, and J. P. "The Big Bopper" Richardson, as well as the pilot, Roger Peterson died in a small plane crash in Iowa on their "Winter Dance Party" tour in 1959. Santorum will be holding a "Santorum Summer Dance Party" in Iowa featuring the late Buddy Holly's backup band the Crickets and the Big Bopper Jr. The jokes write themselves on this one, but you can add your own in the comments section.

Rave on, Lil Ricky!


(No Ritchie Valens tribute by Santorum in Ames, IA for obvious reasons.)

More On Tea Party Hijinks

Before we spend too much more time on Congressman Doyle's use of the Congressional terrorist metaphor (especially since GOP Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell approves of the tactic of taking political hostages - just not shooting them) we should probably cast our eyes and see what sort of rhetoric is flowing out of the GOP's new masters - the Tea Party movement.

You remember those guys, right? They're the folks who are now cheering at the downgrading of the nation's credit rating:

Here's what happened: Midway through the Fond du Lac event, Florida talk show host Andrea Shea King took the stage. She told the audience that commentators were describing the downgrade of US debt to AA+ from AAA as the "tea party downgrade," laying the blame squarely on Congress' right-wing faction and its supporters. But rather than boo those who claim the tea party caused the downgrade, the 200 or so Wisconsinites in attendance cheered, sounding almost proud to blamed for the downgrade.

Well, it is their downgrade - nice of them to take responsibility. From National Journal:

But it’s hard to read the S&P analysis as anything other than a blast at Republicans. In denouncing the threat of default as a “bargaining chip,” the agency was saying that the GOP strategy had shaken its confidence. Though S&P didn’t mention it, the agency must have been unnerved by the number of Republicans who insisted that it would be fine to blow through the debt ceiling and provoke a default.

As many other analysts have noted, the deficit-reduction deal wouldn’t stop debt from climbing faster than the nation’s GDP over the next decade. It warned that the government’s publicly-held debt would climb from 74 percent of GDP at the end of this year to 79 percent by the end of 2011.

But one reason S&P said it had become more gloomy was that it had revised its assumptions about the most likely course of fiscal policy. In previous projections, it said, its “base case scenario” had assumed that Bush tax cuts for the wealthy would expire at the end of 2012, while tax cuts for families earning less than $250,000 a year would be extended. That, it said, would have reduced deficits about $950 billion over ten years.

But the new S&P base case assumes that Congress extends all the Bush tax cuts. “We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act,” S&P said.

And do I need to remind anyone that the GOP's absolute refusal to compromise on raising revenue comes directly from the Taxed Enough Already party (ie TEA) wing that's now controlling the GOP?

But back to our even tempered friends at the aforementioned Tea Party. From Politico:

THIENSVILLE, Wis. -- The founder of Tea Party Nation claimed liberal ideology is responsible for "a billion" deaths over the past century during a raucous rally here Saturday in support of one of the six Republican state senators facing a recall election Tuesday.

"I will tell you ladies and gentlemen, I detest and despise everything the left stands for. How anybody can endorse and embrace an ideology that has killed a billion people in the last century is beyond me," said Tea Party Nation CEO Judson Phillips.

This is up in Wisconsin, where there's lotsa protest over the GOP Governor and recall movement afoot for some State Senators - a recall movement that's permissible under that state's constitution, by the way. And what did Phillips have to say about that? Take a look:

Phillips, who a day prior likened protesters of Gov. Scott Walker to Nazi storm troopers, urged a few hundred tea party supporters to turn out for state Sen. Alberta Darling, who is in a ferocious battle with state Rep. Sandy Pasch to hold onto her suburban Milwaukee seat.

And then there's the trump card:

Vince Schmuki, a leader of the Ozaukee Patriot tea party group compared the recall effort to a terrorist attack.

"This is ground zero," said Schmuki. "You remember what the term ground zero means? We have been attacked."

Liberals have committed genocide, killing billions. Wisconsin citizens exercising their right to protest and recall are Nazis. And of course, they're terrorists.

These are the folks (or the folks much like them) who are now dictating the actions of the Grand Old Party.

Yay for America.

I have some questions

Since our credit rating has been downgraded do we all need to apply collectively for a free credit report? If one of us goes to something like freecreditreport.com and forgets to stop the trial version are we all on the hook for the monthly fees thereafter? Can we all call Standard and Poors and get them to at least put a notation beside it saying that we dispute it?
.

Frack me? No, no! Frack you!

Anyone who has spent any time listening to the pro fracking crowd knows that pretty much the first thing out of their mouths is the assertion that there's never been a proven case of fracking contaminating underground drinking water -- it's been their mantra. I maintain that that is pretty much a red herring as you do not need to pollute groundwater to harm the water supply. The water used in fracking has to go somewhere and very little is being recycled. Aside from illegal dumping and leaching from fracking pools, water treatment facilities simply aren't equipped to handle even the legal disposal of the witches' brew of toxicity found in the "flowback" water.

That said, guess what? Turns out there is a very well documented case of this very thing and the EPA has known about it for decades. Count me not shocked that they've all been lying to us this whole time.

In Pittsburgh, the City Council voted 6-3 to allow residents to decide if they want fracking in the city, but even though that's a veto-proof majority, the Mayor could simply sit on the bill making it too late to get on the November ballot as a referendum. Council requested that Lil Mayor Luke return it to them by the 8th at 4:30 PM, but we know how well the Mayor listens to Council -- the majority anyway -- so if you believe the citizens should have a say, contact the Mayor now:

Email: luke.ravenstahl@city.pittsburg​h.pa.us
Phone: 412-255-2626

Lastly, Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato has poked his head above ground to weigh in on the referendum. Via the Trib:

Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato said Wednesday he has "serious concerns" about the legality of Pittsburgh City Council's proposed ballot referendum banning natural gas drilling within city limits.

Council on Monday approved legislation that would ask voters to decide in November whether to add the ban to the city's Home Rule Charter. Council banned Marcellus shale gas drilling within city limits in November.

Councilman Doug Shields proposed the bill, saying a charter amendment would make the ban harder to overturn. Mayor Luke Ravenstahl, who said he has concerns about the legality of the ban, is considering a veto.

In a written statement, Onorato said he directed the county solicitor and Elections Department to review and analyze the referendum.

[sigh]
.

yep

Via The Onion:

Obama: Debt Ceiling Deal Required Tough Concessions By Both Democrats And Democrats Alike
.

A challenger for Bob Casey?

Via Politico:

Pennsylvania Republicans may finally be closing in on a viable recruit to take on Democratic Sen. Bob Casey: wealthy businessman Steve Welch.

Welch met with National Republican Senatorial Committee officials this week in Washington, POLITICO has learned. People familiar with his thinking say Welch is considering a run more seriously than when GOPers first tried to recruit him earlier in the year.

Welch made a run for Congress last year but aborted his efforts when Jim Gerlach got back into the race. You can still see Welch's campaign website here.
.

Another Lesson - The Right Wing Attack Machine

Congressman Mike Doyle uses the "hostage/terrorist" metaphor and the right wing doesn't like it. The editorial board at the Tribune-Review gets the story wrong:

Lance: To U.S. Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Forest Hills. No effort to "walk back" his inexcusable comparison of tea party members to "terrorists," uttered during a closed-door caucus meeting on Monday, can change the fact that he said what he meant and meant what he said -- or cover the gross ignorance of basic economics betrayed by tax-the-"rich" rhetoric he used in trying to contain the damage.

In reality, he wasn't talking about "tea party members" but the members of Congress who were (to extend the metaphor) using the economy as a hostage to get what they want politically.

Can I point out at this point that the very very conservative Senator from Kentucky, Mitch McConnell, approves of the tactic of political "hostage taking" for political gains? From the Washington Post:

“I think some of our members may have thought the default issue was a hostage you might take a chance at shooting,” [McConnell] said. “Most of us didn’t think that. What we did learn is this — it’s a hostage that’s worth ransoming. And it focuses the Congress on something that must be done.”

Not "shooting" the hostage, of course. Just threatening to. But as they say, it's ok if you're a Republican and Mitch McConnell is a republican so it's OK to threaten to take the economy hostage - as long the political payoff is favorable to the Republicans.

For Congressman Doyle, however, the metaphor (even though they got it wrong) is "inexcusable."

But this is all set-up. Take a step back and look at the bigger picture. Look at what the Trib does in its editorial and how it does it. The second half of the braintrust's criticism of the Congressman's outburst come from Allegheny Institute for Public Policy's Jake Haulk.

The same Allegheny Institute for Public Policy that gets about 87% of its grant money from foundations controlled by Tribune-Review owner Richard Mellon Scaife.

This is how the right wing attack machine works. The Scaife-owned paper needed a quote to attack a political adversary and it conveniently found it at a Scaife-funded right wing think tank.

And there's never ever any mention of the millions Scaife's poured into the Allegheny Institute.

Tea Party Vs YOU

From Reuters:

With Medicare at the top of lawmakers' fall agenda, Tea Party movement leaders hope to ignite support for Republican plans to transform the popular federal healthcare program for the elderly.

Thousands of Tea Party movement activists are expected to descend this month on town hall meetings across key battleground states as part of an intensifying campaign ahead of the 2012 presidential and congressional elections.

Their priority is a plan to slash Medicare costs proposed by House of Representatives Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, which could gain momentum now that a debt-limit deal between President Barack Obama and Congress has made potential Medicare cuts a centerpiece of the deficit debate.

And what's that plan again? It's:

The Ryan plan -- which the House approved in April but which went nowhere in the Democratic-led Senate -- would preserve Medicare for current beneficiaries but transform it for future retirees from a system that provides guaranteed benefits to one that gives the elderly financial assistance to buy private insurance.

Enough of a change that we get to say this would "end Medicare as we know it." So instead of medicare funds going to doctors and/or hospitals for elderly care, note that it goes to insurance companies.

This from our friends at Freedomworks, an astroturf organization funded in part by, of course, our good friend Richard Mellon Scaife (more than $3 million over the past few decades).

So I am sure we can expect to see more than a few editorials from Scaife's braintrust at the Tribune-Review touting the benefits of Freedomworks and the Ryan plan to eradicate Medicare.

It's just that simple.

ALEC In The News!

From today's Post-Gazette:

An analysis released Tuesday from Keystone Progress points to four Pennsylvania measures that they say are nearly identical to model legislation peddled by the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council.

The right-leaning association of state legislators has drawn national attention recently for reports that its model bills are being duplicated in statehouses across the country, and it has been criticized for the influence industry representatives are said to have in the drafting of that model legislation. It has also taken flack for its annual conferences, which lawmakers can attend free of charge and learn about model policies.

While several state lawmakers -- including Cranberry Republican Rep. Daryl Metcalfe -- have attended those conferences and reported the expense-paid trip on their ethics forms, it was the mirror-image legislation that drew much of the criticism from liberal detractors.

You can download the report and read it for yourself from here.

In the report, they've identified some ALEC legislators from PA:

• GOP House Majority Leader Mike Turzai (whose participation in ALEC is paid by state taxpayers)
• GOP House Majority Caucus Chair Sandra Major
• GOP House Caucus Administrator Dick Stevenson
• GOP House Judiciary Chair Ronald Marsico
• GOP House State Government Chair Daryl Metcalfe
• GOP Senate Majority Caucus Secretary Robert Robbins
• GOP Senate Judiciary Chair Stewart Greenleaf
• And GOP Chairs of numerous committees, including Representatives Matthew Baker (Health), Stephen Barrar (Veterans Affairs), Paul Clymer (Educational), John Evans (Game & Fisheries), Robert Godshall (Consumer Affairs), Kate Harper (Ethics), Dick Hess (Commerce), Ronald Miller (Labor & Industry) and Senators Charles McIlhinney (State Government), Jeffrey Piccola (Education), John Pippy (Law & Justice)
• The only identified Democratic PA member of ALEC is Rep. Harry Readshaw, Minority Chair of Professional Licensure.
• Rep. John Evans (R- Crawford, Erie) currently serves as ALEC’s PA chair

Good to see our boy Daryl Metcalfe isn't alone.

There's some pushback in the piece:

"There's some who are trying to portray it as corporations trying to take over legislation -- that's not it," [Rep. Seth Grove, a York County Republican] said. He added that he also looks for policy ideas from the moderate National Conference of State Legislatures.

And:

However, it's unclear whether all of those lawmakers have maintained their involvement with the organization. A spokesman for House Majority Leader Mike Turzai, R-Bradford Woods, said the lawmaker is no longer involved with ALEC.

However from Salon.com we learn:

Republican Majority Leader Michael Turzai has also had membership dues paid for by the state, something that Turzai's spokesman, Steve Mishkin, defended.

"It’s always good to hear from the experience of other legislatures," he said. "That’s how you exchange ideas, best practices, and try to bring those to Pennsylvania’s problem."

Mishkin likened ALEC to the [National Conference of State Legislatures.], but the NCSL doesn't develop and promote model legislation with corporate input and is open to legislators regardless of their ideology. ALEC, by contrast, boasts that its conference "has been described as the 'largest gathering of conservatives held each year.'"

So Turzai's spokesman defended having his ALEC membership dues paid for by the state?

I think someone's trying to pull a fast one, Mr. Mishkin.

Let's assume both statements are correct - that Turzai had been a member of ALEC (with dues paid for by the PA taxpayers) but he's no longer a member. If that's the case, then I have some questions:

• When did the taxpayer support end?
• How long was he a member of ALEC?
• Why did he join?
• Why did he quit?

Maybe next time Turzai's on Night Talk, someone will call in and ask him.

But somehow I don't think this story will end up on the pages of the Tribune-Review. Why not? From the report:

Some of the major ALEC funding sources include Richard Mellon Scaife’s Pittsburgh-based Allegheny Foundation, the Scaife Family Foundation, Exxon Mobil and Koch brothers-related funding sources. [

Something we touched upon in mid-June.

Good to know the P-G is catching up.

Mike Doyle, Joe Biden, and Political Frustration

The fallout from the debt-ceiling vote continues to be felt.

From Politico, today:

Vice President Joe Biden joined House Democrats in lashing tea party Republicans Monday, accusing them of having “acted like terrorists” in the fight over raising the nation’s debt limit, according to several sources in the room.

Biden was agreeing with a line of argument made by Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) at a two-hour, closed-door Democratic Caucus meeting.

“We have negotiated with terrorists,” an angry Doyle said, according to sources in the room. “This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.”

Some clarification from The Trib, later today:

If only he'd said "hostage-takers" instead of "terrorists."

U.S. Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Forest Hills, said he wasn't comparing Tea Party members with terrorists when he used the word during a closed-door caucus meeting Monday, but was expressing frustration at President Obama's negotiating tactics, which he said gave in too quickly to GOP demands in the debt ceiling debate.

"Had I simply said hostage-taker, there wouldn't be this reaction. I certainly wasn't out to defame anybody," said Doyle, who couldn't recall the exact statement he made. "I wasn't talking about the Tea Party. I was talking about the tactic (of) telling us if we don't go along with this bad deal, they're going to blow the economy up."

Before we go any further, let's review some of the rhetoric the tea party has used in the not-so-recent past:

• Obama with a bone through his nose.
  
• Obama as Hitler.

Then there's Ann Coulter:

• Anti-war politicians are gutless traitors.
• Liberalism is treason.

So let's not spend too too much time wringing our hands in despair over how uncivil Congressman Doyle may have been. Unless, of course, they have real thin skin.

By the way, why isn't anyone complaining about how Senator Rand Paul called President Obama a hostage taker? He did:

“With the president holding the American economy hostage, I would prefer to think of myself as a Freedom Fighter,” Paul said in a statement.

Hey, don't terrorists take hostages? Will we be seeing Tea Party favorite Rand Paul apologizing any time soon for his inappropriate rhetoric?

Just asking.

But crude political metaphors aside, what was Doyle thinking? In a phone interview on Tuesday evening, he stressed out frustrated he was with the Obama administration. It was that frustration that bubbled over into the "terrorist" metaphor.

He was frustrated at how the Obama Administration's fumbling of these "negotiations" (I mean really, how do you "negotiate" with those who won't compromise?) has left the Democratic party in a bad situation. How can we do any infrastructure now? He asked. How can they work on any of the Administration's policies now? It wasn't a compromise, he said. It was a surrender.

He was frustrated at how the Tea Party is running the GOP. Speaker Boehner has no control over the caucus, he said. Who are we negotiating with? When the Speaker floated his own plan, his own caucus rejected it.

He was frustrated that the Democratic Party doesn't want to defend itself. There are too many timid Democrats. If we're not willing to defend ourselves, he said, we'll loose.

He was frustrated at the surrender. Me, too. Me, too.

It's time to slip on the battle armor, he said, and fight a little bit.

Hear, hear.

2 Political Junkies named in Washington Post's The Fix’s best state-based political blogs

2 Political Junkies was named in Washington Post's The Fix’s Best State-based Political Blogs for 2011. We were also named in 2009 (there was no list for 2010). We are the only PA blog to make both lists (which may say more about our obsessiveness than anything else).

We thank The Fix and WE THANK OUR READERS!

Here are the other winners for Pennsylvania:





Congratulations to all!
.

Satan Sandwich Passes Senate

The Shit Satan Sandwich passed in the Senate 74 to 26.
.

The Trib On The Debt Ceiling

Again, it's what they leave out that matters most.

From today's editorial page at the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:

"Saving" the nation from an anticipated default caused by Washington's own fiscal disregard, the deal cobbled together Sunday in the 11th hour amounts to yet another excuse for even more egregious spending -- not a course correction.

No mention of the fact that most of that "egregious spending" happened while a Republican was in the White House.

And then there's this:

What the nation gets, instead, is a short-term "fix" that raises the arbitrary debt ceiling, which already has been jacked up 11 times in the past decade. This continues the same ineffectual thinking, the same partisan brinkmanship masquerading as a fool's definition of leadership.

Yes, that's all true. But not in the way the Braintrust wants you to think.

Jacked up 11 times in the last decade. So that's 4 under Obama and 7 under Bush. Think Progress has a chart:

Look at how many times the debt ceiling was raised under Dubya. Look at how much it was raised by. Look at how many GOP Senators voted for it.

The "partisan brinkmanship" the Trib derides is simply this. It's Ok If You Are A Republican.

Did you know that Republican Presidents have raised the debt ceiling much much more than their Democratic counterparts in the last 30 years? The debt ceiling was raised almost 200% under Ronald Reagan alone.Again, a chart:Betcha didn't know that.

Tell me again about the liberal media?

The House Vote - How The Locals Voted

First the vote::

After months of partisan impasse, the House on Monday approved a budget agreement intended to head off a potential government default, pushing Congress a big step closer to the conclusion of a bitter fight that has left both parties bruised and exhausted.

Despite the tension and uncertainty that has surrounded efforts to raise the debt ceiling, the vote of 269-161 was relatively strong in support of the plan, which would cut more than $2.1 trillion in government spending over 10 years while extending the borrowing authority of the Treasury Department. It would also create a powerful new joint congressional committee to recommend broad changes in spending -- and possibly in tax policy -- to reduce the deficit.

All but one member of the Pennsylvania delegation to The House voted for the bill - Congressman Doyle. In a press release he explained his vote:

I voted against S. 365 because I believe it will kill jobs and choke off economic growth while making life harder for the Americans who are struggling the most.

I believe the federal government’s skyrocketing national debt is a problem the United States must fix – and that it will require substantial sacrifice for us to do so – but I strongly oppose the approach taken in this bill, which I believe to be both counterproductive and unjust.

I recognize that we need to cut spending as part of the solution. That’s why I voted last week for Senator Reid’s plan to cut $2 trillion in spending over the next ten years. But the Republican cuts-only approach won’t stop the growth in the national debt, it won’t grow the economy, and it won’t create jobs.

In fact, spending cuts in the middle of an economic crisis slow the economy down and choke off job growth – as recent economic figures for the second quarter have shown.

Unless we grow the economy, spending cuts won’t get the deficit under control. That’s why I believe that Congress must enact a more comprehensive approach that includes tax reform along with spending cuts.

The other reason I opposed the debt limit bill was my belief that getting deficits and the debt under control should be accomplished with shared sacrifice, and not by dumping all of the burden on the most vulnerable members of our society. So, for example, this bill doesn’t ask profitable companies and the wealthiest Americans to share the sacrifice through higher taxes. On the other hand, it makes cuts in student loan programs and eliminates the firewall for defense after only two years. That’s not my idea of shared sacrifice.

I voted twice to raise the debt – once for a clean debt limit increase with no strings attached, and once for the Reid plan, which would have raised the debt limit and cut $2 trillion in spending. I am deeply pleased that, in the end, Congress didn’t allow our government to default on its obligations, but I couldn’t support a bill that I believe will do real, substantial damage to our economy, deny essential aid to struggling households, and slow or stop the creation of American jobs.

Congressman Jason Altmire, our other local Democrat in the House, voted in favor. His explanation:

Addressing this nation's fiscal responsibilities can't be done by listening only to the views of extremists of either political party. All along, I've called for a centrist approach to reduce spending and lay the groundwork for long-term deficit reduction. This package makes the responsible cuts in Washington's long history of over-spending without harming Social Security, veterans' benefits and military pay. Because this debt limit increase does not put us back in this situation six months from now, this bill provides a sense of certainty to our financial markets that have been unhappy with the process involved with fulfilling our credit obligations. The American people wanted compromise, a solution from the middle, and today Democrats and Republicans delivered that to them.

Pittsburgh City Council passes bill to hold anti fracking referendum 6-3

Pittsburgh City Council Bill 1939 (anti fracking referendum) passes 6-3.

On the downside, we can expect a doubling of those ubiquitous Range Resources TV ads...

Burgess to vote YES for anti fracking referendum

Last week Councilman Ricky Burgess abstained from voting on having a referendum to amend the city's Home Rule Charter to include a ban on fracking.

He just said in council chambers that he would vote yes on the final bill (even while questioning the motives of Council members who were for the referendum).

He said he was voting yes because he favors letting the people decide and in hopes that his bills for referendums would be able to go through.

So, that would be six yes votes -- making it veto proof from Lil Mayor Luke.

Yes!

Dowd to vote NO on having fracking ban referendum in Pittsburgh

Pittsburgh City Councilman Patrick Dowd just said he was going to vote no again on giving Pittsburghers the ability to vote on amending the city's Home Rule Charter to include a ban on fracking. Dowd had received numerous emails and phone calls asking him to reconsider his vote.

The bill received five yes votes last week in a preliminary vote (Shields, Peduto, Kraus, Rudiak, Harris).

Lil Mayor Luke Ravenstahl has already said that he would consider vetoing a proposal.

Council would need six votes to overturn that veto.

Looks like we don't have them.

UPDATE: Burgess to vote yes -- that's six votes.
.

Do you want fries with your sugar-coated Satan sandwich?

You want fries with that?
Via the examiner.com:

While the president seemed to breathe a deep sigh of relief that a deal was struck, members of the Democratic caucus were less than enthusiastic about the plan. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver dismissed the deal as “a sugar-coated Satan sandwich” and “a shady bill.”

Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ.), co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said, “This deal trades people’s livelihoods for the votes of a few unappeasable right-wing radicals,” adding that “the lesson today is that Republicans can hold their breath long enough to get what they want.”

The Trib: Ya Don't Say!

Take a look at this editorial from today's Tribune-Review:

Harsh restrictions that leave most police and law-abiding citizens unarmed helped turn supposed gun-control paradise Norway into hell on earth.

Writing for National Review Online, intern Charlie Cooke says Norway's strict regulations -- guns allowed only for hunting and sports shooting, shooting-club membership required for handgun owners, police "unarmed except in special circumstances" -- are "an irrelevance when considering the actions of Anders Breivik."

The self-admitted perpetrator of last month's Oslo bombing and political youth-camp shootings had a clean criminal record. Had he not obtained his weapons legally in Norway, "he would have found them elsewhere," Mr. Cooke writes -- and tried to do so, in Prague, Czech Republic. Would-be terrorists "are beyond the law and will not be constrained by changes to it," he adds.

Neither police -- who needed 90 minutes to reach the island camp -- nor Mr. Breivik's targets had the firepower to fight back against him, a situation Cooke says is "inconceivable" here.

He calls Norway "a veritable paradise for those with ill intent who know that their actions will go unchecked" -- which is what the United States would be without Americans' Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Funny how they'll not mention the fact that Breivik's a right-wing terrorist. Neither Scaife's braintrust nor the NRO intern they rely on for these five paragraphs ever get around to even hinting at the politics of the shooter. For them it's about access to guns.

No, the problem in Norway, to them, isn't the right-wing terrorists arming themselves and shooting up some labor party kids to protect some "European Christian cultural legacy." The problem in Norway is that not enough people are armed. If only someone was armed at that camp, they earnestly tell us, the carnage might have been less.

Except that with its stricter gun control laws, there are only about 3 murders per 100,000 in Norway. Wanna know how that compares to the Good Ole USA where the gun control laws are less strict?

It's half of the estimated 6 per 100,000 for the US. That's half, for those who don't do math too good.

Huh. I would guess that maybe those harsh restrictions might have something to do with those numbers.

But I could be wrong.

Looks like we do negotiate with terrorists after all

The Deal: All cuts and no revenue.
.