And Still, They Spin

Yesterday on Hardball:


Some analysis from Washington Monthly:

Right off the bat, Fleischer argues that Bush inherited a recession from Clinton. That, at a minimum, is highly misleading. From there, pressed on whether he's "proud" of Bush's economic legacy, Fleischer said Americans will remember Bush as a president who "kept us safe."

When Matthews pointed out that the attacks of 9/11 happened on Bush's watch, Fleischer responded, "Chris, How dare you." It's not at all clear Matthews' comment was so outrageous to Fleischer.

Also note, towards the end, Fleischer argued, "After Sept. 11, having been hit once, how could we take a chance that Saddam might not strike again?" That man, obviously, is without shame.

I don't generally care for "Hardball" interviews, but Matthews' final point was a good one: "I'm proud that we no longer have an administration that uses that kind argument."

And yes, he DID say "After Sept. 11, having been hit once, how could we take a chance that Saddam might not strike again?"

Again?

These people have no shame.

An Executive Assassination Ring

From the Eric Black at MinnPost.com:

At a “Great Conversations” event at the University of Minnesota [Wednesday] night, legendary investigative reporter Seymour Hersh may have made a little more news than he intended by talking about new alleged instances of domestic spying by the CIA, and about an ongoing covert military operation that he called an “executive assassination ring.”

The discussion at one point touched on how Presidents get "intoxicated" with executive power, with the notion that they can get away with something. When Hersh was asked whether it could happen today. His answer:

Yuh. After 9/11, I haven’t written about this yet, but the Central Intelligence Agency was very deeply involved in domestic activities against people they thought to be enemies of the state. Without any legal authority for it. They haven’t been called on it yet. That does happen.

Right now, today, there was a story in the New York Times that if you read it carefully mentioned something known as the Joint Special Operations Command -- JSOC it’s called. It is a special wing of our special operations community that is set up independently. They do not report to anybody, except in the Bush-Cheney days, they reported directly to the Cheney office. They did not report to the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff or to Mr. [Robert] Gates, the secretary of defense. They reported directly to him. ...

Congress has no oversight of it. It’s an executive assassination ring essentially, and it’s been going on and on and on. Just today in the Times there was a story that its leaders, a three star admiral named [William H.] McRaven, ordered a stop to it because there were so many collateral deaths.

Under President Bush’s authority, they’ve been going into countries, not talking to the ambassador or the CIA station chief, and finding people on a list and executing them and leaving. That’s been going on, in the name of all of us.

It’s complicated because the guys doing it are not murderers, and yet they are committing what we would normally call murder. It’s a very complicated issue. Because they are young men that went into the Special Forces. The Delta Forces you’ve heard about. Navy Seal teams. Highly specialized.

In many cases, they were the best and the brightest. Really, no exaggerations. Really fine guys that went in to do the kind of necessary jobs that they think you need to do to protect America. And then they find themselves torturing people.

I’ve had people say to me -- five years ago, I had one say: ‘What do you call it when you interrogate somebody and you leave them bleeding and they don’t get any medical committee and two days later he dies. Is that murder? What happens if I get before a committee?’

But they’re not gonna get before a committee.” [emphasis in original]

Here's the Times article Hersh references. The first three paragraphs:

The commander of a secretive branch of America’s Special Operations forces last month ordered a halt to most commando missions in Afghanistan, reflecting a growing concern that civilian deaths caused by American firepower are jeopardizing broader goals there.

The halt, which lasted about two weeks, came after a series of nighttime raids by Special Operations troops in recent months killed women and children, and after months of mounting outrage in Afghanistan about civilians killed in air and ground strikes. The order covered all commando missions except those against the highest-ranking leaders of the Taliban and Al Qaeda, military officials said.

American commanders in Afghanistan rely on the commando units to carry out some of the most delicate operations against militant leaders, and the missions of the Army’s Delta Force and classified Navy Seals units are never publicly acknowledged. But the units sometimes carry out dozens of operations each week, so any decision to halt their missions is a sign of just how worried military officials are that the fallout from civilian casualties is putting in peril the overall American mission in Afghanistan, including an effort to drain the Taliban of popular support.

Hersh has more on the JSOC. From DemocracyNow!:

Their unit (sic) to go find and kill and capture, if possible, high-value targets anywhere in the world. The whole world is a free fire zone for them.

Another Independent Bid for Mayor: Kevin Acklin

Kevin Acklin has been mentioned (see here and here) as a possible Republican challenger to Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl. Yesterday, he announced that he will run as an Independent:

Today I filed with the Allegheny County Elections Division to register as an Independent. Over the next two months, I’ll be meeting with residents and activists, with public servants and private citizens, with elected officials and community leaders of all parties and political persuasions, to hear more about what they want for Pittsburgh, and to test the waters for an independent mayoral run.

Many people have approached me and encouraged me to seek the Republican nomination for mayor of the city of Pittsburgh. My name has often been mentioned in the press as a potential, even likely, candidate for that nomination. While I appreciate both the support and the encouragement, I’ve decided, after careful thought and deliberation, that I cannot in good conscience follow that path.

I’ve spent countless hours working and volunteering all across Pittsburgh, helping to revitalize the city one project and one neighborhood at a time.. As I've been working in the neighborhoods, many people have approached me to talk about the new kind of leadership they want for Pittsburgh, and they’ve urged me to help bring that change. They’ve told me to listen to my heart, to follow the courage of my convictions, and to consider running for mayor as an Independent. I’ve been listening to them, and I’m going to continue to do so.

I’ve set this timeline and established this process because I want to be sure that whatever I do is in the best interests of the people and the city of Pittsburgh. If I decide to enter the mayor’s race, I want to be the kind of candidate who’s both inspired and empowered by his fellow citizens.. And I pledge to run the kind of campaign that makes it possible to run the best kind of government: one that unites, and that truly speaks for, everyone in the city.

You may remember Acklin as the guy who ran (and lost) against Chuck McCullough for an at-large seat on Allegheny County Council.

While Acklin, an attorney, doesn't appear to have been your typical R (he provides volunteer pro bono legal services for green technology companies, community groups, and victims of domestic violence; he's the founder and Executive Director of RenewPittsburgh which, among other things, helped in the restoration of playwright August Wilson's boyhood home in the Hill District; he attended the January rally for equal rights for the LGBT community) make no mistake, his heart belongs to (the) daddy (party).

If it was up to Acklin, Mittens would be Prez, Missy Hart would be back in the House, and he ♥s Tim Murphy. Ick!

Of course, he'd still be better than Lil Mayor Luke but that's damning him (and anybody else) with faint praise.
.

Meet The Candidates - Dan Bricmont, Esq

Part of an ad hoc series designed to introduce you Pennsylvania's many and varied legislative and judicial candidates.

Sometime ago I received an e-mail asking if I'd like to interview Daniel Bricmont for this blog. The e-mail informed me that Bricmont is currently a candidate for the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Once I saw the name, I leapt at the chance. You'll see why in a minute.

But first a little background on the Comonwealth Court from the court's website:

The Commonwealth Court is one of Pennsylvania's two statewide intermediate appellate courts. This court, which was established in 1968, is unlike any other state court in the nation. Its jurisdiction generally is limited to legal matters involving state and local government and regulatory agencies. Litigation typically focuses on such subjects as banking, insurance and utility regulation and laws affecting taxation, land use, elections, labor practices and workers compensation. Commonwealth Court also acts as a court of original jurisdiction, or a trial court, when lawsuits are filed by or against the Commonwealth.

The Commonwealth Court is made up of nine judges who serve 10-year terms. The president judge is chosen by his or her colleagues for a five-year term. The court generally decides cases in three-judge panels and sits in Philadelphia, Harrisburg and Pittsburgh.

None of which I knew before I got that e-mail.

Anyway, back to Bricmont. For the sake of full disclosure let me say right now that I met him in the mid-90s when I was employed at his law firm, Caroselli Beachler. He was an associate in what I remember to be a cozy corner office and I was a grunt in the fileroom. Now you can understand why I leapt at the opportunity to interview him for my blog.

I left the firm, by the way, in 1997 and I may have bumped into him three times in the intervening 12 years.

While Bricmont's been endorsed by the Pennsylvania Democratic Committee, it should be noted that he's only been registered as a Democrat since 2008. I asked him about it early on in our conversation and got, shall we say, an eager and animated response.

He said he'd changed his voter registration in order to vote for then-Senator Barack Obama in the Pennsylvania primary. Not a big fan of the Bush administration, his donation record of has been decidedly non-GOP as of late. Indeed, according to Open Secrets, in the last three federal election cycles he's donated $3,960 to 6 candidates - all but one being Democrats. In March of 2004, he donated $500 to that darling of the radical right, Senator Arlen Specter.

And despite donating to pro-life Democrats Senator Bob Casey and Congressman Jason Altmire, Bricmont is pro-choice and describes Roe v Wade as "settled law."

Judicial campaigns are a much different animal than legislative campaigns. It is "not appropriate" he told me to engage in any sort of "tit for tat" criticism of his opponents. The focus, he said, must be on job qualifications. So we talked about his job qualifications.

His experience, he said as a for instance, as a worker's comp attorney will suit him well on a court that hears cases dealing with employment issues. It is on a such a court were someone who's defended workers' rights for 20 years needs to be, especially these days when the economy is shedding hundreds of thousands of jobs per month. His time as Mayor of Avalon, he added, gave him experience working with a number of statewide government agencies, agencies whose appeals would right straight to the Commonwealth Court of PA.

Daniel Bricmont is a smart guy and after his, uh, pointed response to my first question, I immediately thought, "Holy crap. This is going to be harder than I thought. I can't dance my way through this. I'm going to have to really work to keep up with this guy."

And I was just a blogger and we were just chatting over sandwiches. I can only imagine the attorneys who'd have to face him in Court. All the tees would be crossed, all the eyes dotted. (And let me admit right now that a few of mine weren't.) Bricmont seemed a stickler for the law and for all the necessary proceedures attached to the law.

There's a reason, I guess, why the ACBA gave him a "Highly Recommended" rating.

Dowd: PWSA's problem bond could lead to a $3,800 liability for each customer (including me!)

[First, Early Return Dudes, I'm still playing catch up. This is my non-paying gig and the stuff I posted early this AM was from last night. Besides, I have some plumber dudes filling in a $9,000 hole in my basement today and I have my own problems with PWSA and I'm just a mere 22 callers on hold away from speaking to them.]

The folks at the Post-Gazette are right. This is important:

First, Dowd. The mayoral challenger, whose campaign is all about sober-minded fiscal responsibility, spent the weekend poring over 2,000-plus pages of financial documents on a squirrelly water and sewer authority bond deal, and came up with some explosive findings -- that the city agency recklessly entered a no-bid financial deal, overseen by Ravenstahl's own finance director, that is costing ratepayers at least $2.6 million a year.

Dowd was wrong, the water authority's director responded at a press conference called later by Ravenstahl's office -- it is actually costing city residents $2.9 million. "To attempt to politicize this issue at the expense of ratepayers is unfortunate," Ravenstahl said, accusing Mr. Dowd of releasing "some sensitive information" on the deal.

Read all the ugliness here.

(Will there ever come a time when I see the term SWAP and don't feel like running for the hills?)
.

Franco 'Dok' Harris interviewed by Jon Delano

Really good interview here You can view the 17-minute uncut video here. And, it turns out that Schultz was a classmate with Dok. I've never met Dok but I, like every other person I've spoken to who's ever met him, can say that his dad is just the nicest guy.

Bushvilles

Job Losses Hint at Vast Remaking of Economy

The Coming Crash No One Is Talking About
.

Immoral

I don't know if any of you have heard of the case in Brazil of the nine-year old girl who was raped, allegedly by her own stepfather, who was pregnant with twins. She underwent an abortion (illegal in Brazil except in very rare circumstances with the approval of a court). The judge approved the abortion because the director of the university hospital where the abortion was performed made it clear that the nine-year-old was simply too small to carry one child to term let alone two and the pregnancy presented a grave risk to her.

The story first made the news because a lawyer for the Archdiocese of Olinda and Recife in northeastern Brazil declared that the nine-year old should have been forced to carry the pregnancy to term and called the abortion murder.

Then a regional archbishop in Brazil excommunicated the mother of the girl, the doctors who performed the life-saving surgery, but not the alleged rapist (who is also suspected of repeatedly raping the nine-year old's disabled teenage sister).

So this is just Brazil, right?

Well, now the Vatican has defended the excommunications:

A senior Vatican cleric has defended the excommunication of the mother and doctors of a nine-year-old girl who had an abortion in Brazil after being raped.

Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, head of the Catholic church's Congregation for Bishops, told the daily La Stampa on Saturday that the twins the girl had been carrying had a right to live.

[snip]

Re, who also heads the Pontifical Commission for Latin America, added: "Life must always be protected, the attack on the Brazilian church is unjustified."

[snip]

The regional archbishop, Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, pronounced excommunication for the mother for authorising the operation and doctors who carried it out for fear that the slim girl would not survive carrying the foetuses to term.

"God's law is above any human law. So when a human law ... is contrary to God's law, this human law has no value," Cardoso had said.

He also said the accused stepfather would not be expelled from the church. Although the man allegedly committed "a heinous crime ... the abortion - the elimination of an innocent life - was more serious".

Battista Re agreed, saying: "Excommunication for those who carried out the abortion is just" as a pregnancy termination always meant ending an innocent life.

Can someone explain to me how the nine-year old girl is not also an innocent life?

Can someone please explain how the nine-year old girl's mother and doctors were not trying to save an innocent life?

Can someone justify this to me?

Seriously.

For some reason, I'm reminded of something David just blogged about.

I am also reminded of the fact that the Republican Party Platform wanted to outlaw all abortions including those to save the life of the mother which in the this case would have been a NINE-YEAR OLD GIRL.

R.E.M. - New Music - More Music Videos

.

Stem Cell Research

Huh.

The loveliest of lovelies, Darieth Chisolm just told me in a TV news report (one that included the completely necessary comment from a local priest) that stem cell research is "controversial."

Funny. I just checked with Gallup, the polling folks, and they say otherwise. Take a look:

As a scientific endeavor, Americans have a generally positive reaction to embryonic stem cell research. A solid majority of Americans (typically 60%) agree with using stem cells derived from human embryos for medical research; 61% consider such research morally acceptable.

That's the general picture. More specifically, only 11% of Americans want unfettered government funding of embryonic stem cell research while 19% want no funding whatsoever. The broad middle group believes there should be limited funding -- either with keeping the current restrictions (24%) or easing those restrictions (42%).

Because the issue is not highly important to most Americans, the public has, at different times, shown majority support for conflicting funding policies. [emphasis added.]

Yea, that's some controversy.

Luke's Got Another Opponent

From Chris Potter:

Franco Harris' son, Dok Harris, is apparently running for mayor -- as an independent in the general election. We first noted these rumors last week, when Harris promised an update. And the Harris Web site was updated this morning. In it, he pledges to a mount "an inclusive and open campaign" and to "adhere to strict campaign contribution limits" though he doesn't specify what those limits will be.

More details as they come in.

Some details from the P-G:

Franco Dok Harris, the 29-year-old son of Steelers Hall of Famer Franco Harris, announced plans today to run for mayor of Pittsburgh.

The Shadyside resident will not compete against Mayor Luke Ravenstahl and others in the May 19 Democratic primary, but rather as an independent in November. It will be his first run for office.

And from Tim McNulty:

It seemed like a hoax when word began leaking last week, but it's actually for real: Franco Dok Harris, the 29-year-old son of the Steelers Hall of Famer, plans to run for Pittsburgh's mayor. Here's my story on the P-G's Breaking News site.

The Sewickley native, who currently lives in Shadyside, is registered as an independent and would run against the Democratic and Republican nominees in November. He decided to officially announce today after last week's Internet speculation, which included goofy changes to his dad's Wikipedia entry, including this one: "Additionally, Dok does not always brush his teeth before leaving the house."

Should he go up against incumbent and fellow 29-year-old Luke Ravenstahl, it would provide an interesting counterpoint to the famously Steelers-obsessed mayor, who even today, at his own reelection announcement on Grant Street, had all his election materials printed in black and gold. Unlike Ravenstahl, who played football in high school and college, Harris, who goes by "Dok" to differentiate himself from his dad, didn't play the game. He was on the tennis and wrestling teams.

I am assuming Dok DOES brush his teeth before leaving the house.

Here's the official website.

Rising Ranks Of The "No Religion-ists"

From The Washington Post:

The percentage of Americans who call themselves Christians has dropped dramatically over the past two decades, and those who do are increasingly identifying themselves without traditional denomination labels, according to a major study of U.S. religion being released today.

Some detail:

The only group that grew in every U.S. state since the 2001 survey was people saying they had "no" religion; the survey says this group is now 15 percent of the population.

15% of 300 million is 45 million. 45 Million Americans claiming "no religion."

I wonder how the social conservatives will be spinning this.

Jack Kelly Sunday - A Monday Update

Here's an update to yesterday's post.

From Talking Points Memo:

Freeman is firmly in the Realist school of foreign policy. He was a former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia and is close to the Saudis. The real rub, the basis of the whole controversy, however, is that he has been far more critical of Israeli policy than is generally allowed within acceptable debate in Washington. That is the crux of it. And because of that he's become the target of a spirited campaign to get his appointment rescinded.

Josh Marshall continues:

But the whole effort strikes me as little more than a thuggish effort to keep the already too-constricted terms of debate over the Middle East and Israel/Palestine locked down and largely one-sided. James Fallows argues here for the need for contrarian thinkers in general, of which Freeman is certainly one. Joe Klein reviews the issue here, arguing that it's not the time to be enforcing groupthink on Israel or other critical policy issues. And Andrew Sullivan has been doing great blogging on this topic in general and in this timeline in particular, which shows the whole storm being whipped up by neoconservatives upset over Freeman's positions on Israel. Finally, 17 former Ambassadors -- including Thomas Pickering -- have now come forward to support the appointment and defend Freeman's worthiness for the position if not agree with all his views.

You've now been updated.

A FURTHER Update (03/10/09): Freeman resigns.

Jack Kelly Sunday

This this week's column, Jack Kelly has officially joined what Robert Dreyfus at The Nation has called a "thunderous, coordinated assault" targeting President Obama's Chair for the National Intelligence Council.

Jack detours, if ever so slightly, into spinning on Obama advisor Samantha Power along the way:

Harvard professor Samantha Power has accused Israel of war crimes, and once recommended U.S. troops be sent to impose upon the Israelis a peace settlement by force. She's been appointed by President Obama to a senior foreign policy job at the White House. Mr. Peretz assured his readers in December that Ms. Power "truly, truly loves Israel and the people of Israel."

Let's start with the war crimes charge. Power gets into trouble, for example here at Commentary magazine, for what looks to be a rhetorical sleight of hand on her part:

Samantha Power: I have a question for David about working for the New York Times. I was struck by a headline that accompanied a news story on the publication of the Human Rights Watch report. The headline was, I believe: “Human Rights Report Finds Massacre Did Not Occur in Jenin.” The second paragraph said, “Oh, but lots of war crimes did.” Why wouldn’t they make the war crimes the headline and the non-massacre the second paragraph?

(The article to which Power refers is here, and its headline is: “MIDEAST TURMOIL: INQUIRY; Rights Group Doubts Mass Deaths in Jenin, but Sees Signs of War Crimes.” Obviously, Power has misremembered the headline.)

Here we have another window into the thinking of Power: Israel is accused in sensational press reports of a massacre in Jenin, and is subjected to severe international condemnation; HRW finally gets out a report and says there was no massacre; the NYT reports this as its headline; and Power thinks the headline still should have been: Israel guilty of war crimes!

Commentary seems to be saying that because there was no massacre, there were no war crimes. And because she made the war crimes charge, she's wrong wrong wrong. However if you take a look at the Times article Power referred to:

A day after Israeli opposition killed plans for a United Nations fact-finding mission into the Israeli Army's disputed attack on this refugee camp, a weeklong investigation by an American rights group found that Palestinian claims of hundreds of civilian deaths are exaggerated.

But the report, the most authoritative to date, also contains conclusions beneficial to the Palestinians in the international furor surrounding just what occurred here.

For instance, it found what it described as evidence that Israeli forces used civilians to walk protectively in front of them throughout the incursion; destroyed more houses than needed for ''any conceivable military purpose''; and blocked the passage of ambulances and relief groups to the camp for 11 days.

The document, based on more than 100 interviews and written by Human Rights Watch, a group that is generally considered fair-minded, concluded that those actions, among others, constituted ''strong prima facie evidence'' that Israeli soldiers ''committed grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, or war crimes'' and called for further investigation by Israeli or international bodies.

So Power isn't alone in accusing Israel of committing war crimes. Here she's quoting Human Rights Watch (And you can read more from Human Rights Watch here if you'd like.) Then there's the "imposing a peace settlement by force" stuff. That's Jack's own rhetorical sleight of hand. He writes that she:

...once recommended U.S. troops be sent to impose upon the Israelis a peace settlement by force.

Without pointing out her own reaction to that "recommendation." Shmuel Rosner has the story at Haaretz.com (note the headline - "Obama`s top adviser says does not believe in imposing a peace settlement"):

In recent weeks, a young and talented writer named Noah Pollack, who writes for the right-wing magazine Commentary, has delved deeply into Power's statements on record. Among other things, he found the following things she said, in a 2002 interview, about what should be done to stop the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: "[It will] mean sacrificing - or investing, I think, more than sacrificing - billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel's military, but actually investing in the new state of Palestine, in investing the billions of dollars it would probably take, also, to support what will have to be a mammoth protection force, not of the old Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence."

In that same interview, Power said that the situation will "require external intervention." Pollack very reasonably interpreted this as an expression of support for a "ground invasion of Israel and the Palestinian territories." Otherwise, he wrote, what did she mean when she spoke of "a mammoth protection force"?

Power herself recognizes that the statement is problematic. "Even I don't understand it," she says. And also: "This makes no sense to me." And furthermore: "The quote seems so weird." She thinks that she made this statement in the context of discussing the deployment of international peacekeepers. But this was a very long time ago, circumstances were different, and it's hard for her to reconstruct exactly what she meant. Anyway, what she she said five years ago is less important that what she wants to say now: She absolutely does not believe in "imposing a settlement." Israelis and Arabs "will negotiate their own peace."

This was posted at Haaretz way back in August, 2008 - some seven months ago. A serious piece of information Jack avoided telling you, isn't it?

Now let's move onto Chas Freeman. Dreyfus writes that the story:

...began with alarmist postings on a blog by Steve Rosen, the former official of the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee who's been indicted for pro-Israeli espionage in a long-running AIPAC scandal. Rosen, whose blog is entitled "Obama Mideast Monitor," is published by the Middle East Forum, a rabid, right-wing Zionist outlet led by Daniel Pipes, whose Middle East Quarterly is edited by Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute.

Andrew Sullivan writes much the same thing. Though Sullivan goes on to write:

My colleague Jeffrey Goldberg wrote on February 23 that Freeman was "well-known for his hostility toward Israel," but argued that the Saudi connections were more "substantively" problematic. The evidence Jeffrey provided for "hostility to Israel" is this essay. Read it yourself.

After posting this:

Tragically, despite all the advantages and opportunities Israel has had over the fifty-nine years of its existence, it has failed to achieve concord and reconciliation with anyone in its region, still less to gain their admiration or affection. Instead, with each decade, Israel's behavior has deviated farther from the humane ideals of its founders and the high ethical standards of the religion that most of its inhabitants profess. Israel and the Palestinians, in particular, are caught up in an endless cycle of reprisal and retaliation that guarantees the perpetuation of conflict in which levels of mutual atrocities continue to escalate. As a result, each generation of Israelis and Palestinians has accumulated new reasons to loathe the behavior of the other, and each generation of Arabs has detested Israel with more passion than its predecessor. This is not how peace is made. Here, too, a break with the past and a change in course are clearly in order.

Sullivan writes:

This is Freeman's cardinal sin among his critics: to blame Israel, even in part, for the plight it finds itself in, and to ask that US foreign policy be more neutral with respect to the parties in the Middle East.

And Jack, as they say, has joined the queue.

The President Today

The text can be found here.

Senator Specter

From Talkingpointsmemo:

Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) could be in very serious trouble. Former Rep. Pat Toomey, who challenged Specter from the right in the Republican primary back in 2004, then went on to head the Club For Growth, is reportedly running again in 2010.

In this case, bad news for Specter could also be good news for Democrats -- if the ultra-conservative Toomey wins the primary, the Democratic nominee will have a very good shot at winning the seat, as opposed to Specter starting out as the favorite in any general election.

Toomey very nearly beat Specter in the 2004 primary, making it a 51%-49% race even though Specter had the full weight of the Bush White House behind him. This time could be different: There is no Republican White House; the GOP voter base is smaller and even more conservative; and most importantly, Specter has just voted for the stimulus package -- you know, that thing the right-wing activists denounce as a socialist takeover of America.

Indeed, a recent Susquehanna poll showed just how problematic things are for Specter: Among registered Republicans, 66% want someone else, and only 26% say he deserves another term.

So by all means, in a state that, in 2006, tossed out ultra-conservative Rick Santorum by a margin of almost 18 percentage points, let's hope the GOP follows it's own advice and tries to reclaim the majority by fielding candidates who are more conservative than the electorate they're looking to represent.

Very smart move.

From A Recent Poll From Fox "News"

Ohmigodohmigodohmigod!

How will the wingnuts deal with this one?

In a recent poll for Fox "News", 900 registered voters nationwide were asked the following question:

What do you think the nation's economy needs more of right now -- the economic policies of Ronald Reagan or the economic policies of Barack Obama?

And how do you think the numbers stacked up?

40% Ronald Reagan
49% Barack Obama
11% Don't know

But didn't Ronald Wilson Reagan save us all (singlehandedly, no less) from the Communist Menace? But, more importantly, didn't Ronald Wilson Reagan save us from ourselves??

And yet, in this current FOX "NEWS" poll, more people think we need the economic policies of the new guy.

Huh. Go figure.

The Daily Show Tracks CNBC's Financial Advice

More tragedy than comedy, but not to missed!


.

Dowd Campaign Launches Campaign Website, Hires Local Firm

From Dowd for Mayor:

Dowd Campaign Launches Campaign Website, Hires Local Firm
Pittsburgh, PA March 5, 2009

This week the Patrick Dowd mayoral campaign launched a website at http://www.dowdformayor.com/. The campaign hired local start-up Bearded Studio to develop the site design and functionality.

"Our web design team epitomizes a story we'd like to see repeated over and over again in this city. Two young people with an idea and some entrepreneurial spirit start and grow a business right here in Pittsburgh," Dowd said. "Our campaign is thrilled to find and engage great local talent."

As Progress Pittsburgh pointed out, Lil Mayor Luke used an out-of-state company for his website:

Check out this tweet, from a guy in North Carolina - looks like Luke Ravenstahl has a new campaign website http://lukeformayor.com/ . The website is being designed by New Media Campaigns which is based in North Carolina. The guy who posted the tweet is originally from Cleveland, it doesn’t look like this firm has any Pittbsurgh connections.

Hey, Luke! That's a job that could have gone to a Pittsburgher!

Like Dowd, mayoral candidate Carmen Robinson also managed to find a Pittsburgh firm to do her website, Soul Pitt Media, which is owned by a local African American woman. Robinson's website is: http://carmenformayor.com

Speaking as a local web designer myself (see a sample of my work at http://www.georgiaforcouncil.com) this issue does resonate with me.
.

Are You Ready to Skate?

Starting off the Campaign… with a Glide! Councilman Bill Peduto is kicking-off his 2009 re-election campaign and he needs your help to start it off right! Join us and Skate the Night Away, for a night of food, fun, and of course – free ice skating at Schenley Park’s outdoor rink! Friday, March 13, 2009 7:00pm - 9:00pm Schenley Ice Rink Banquet Room Bring your friends, lace up your skates, and skate the night away with Bill as we make this a night to remember! Not ready to tackle the ice? Relax in the rink’s banquet room and snack on desserts and refreshments with friends. RSVP HERE

It's official: Lynn Cullen is back!

Now @ WAMO
You may have heard some rumors and now it's official:

Talk host Lynn Cullen is returning to the airwaves.

Starting Monday, she'll host a two-hour talk show on WAMO-AM (860). It will air Mondays through Fridays from 5 to 7 p.m.

[snip]

Ms. Cullen said she's thrilled to be back. Being off the radio "through such historic times has been a long, silent ordeal for me," she said. Her last day on the air was the day Sen. John McCain announced that Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska would be his running mate in the 2008 presidential election. "I missed all of that and the election. If I ever wanted to be on the air, it was exactly the six months I was pulled."

I certainly missed her voice during the election -- welcome back!

WAMO-AM's welcome here.

.