Next Friday

I saw last year's show. I can't say enough good things about the show I saw last year.

I'll be there this year.

It's a good cause, you should too.

P-G Editorial: 'Obama must go: Dems needs a new leader after the debacle'

I think that this version makes as much sense as the Post-Gazette's (little to none):

PelosiObama must go: House Dems need a new leader after the debacle

November 05, 2010
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

In the recent midterm elections, the Republicans had ready labels to demonize many Democratic causes -- and one favorite label was "Pelosi." "Obama." The simple name took on a life of its own and was used as if to pre-empt all debate, the assumption being that the audience understood "Pelosi" "Obama" was an acronym for evil.

In real life, the most powerful woman in American politics and the most vilified was never evil. She remains a dedicated, smart, attractive 7049-year-old grandmotherfather with fivetwo children and eight grandchildren. As the first female speaker of the U.S. House African American President of the United States, she was not without faults, but she cut a historic figure that infuriated heris enemies beyond all reason.

For whatever cause, Nancy PelosiBarack Obama has aroused a visceral dislike in heris critics that goes beyond the fact that heris job has been to push an agenda that affronts conservatives. Perhaps it's because she is a wealthy, pro-choice liberal from San FranciscoChicago, the most liberalDemocratic of cities. Perhaps it's that a powerful progressive womanAfrican American man offers a special affront to some, especially as she offered a sharp and unflattering contrast to heris Republican predecessors, the unimpressive Dennis Hastert and the flaky Newt Gingrich George W. Bush.

Take your pick of reasons -- but you are still left with a hard-to-argue fact. Nancy PelosiBarack Obama has become a brand name, and not a flattering one for the Democratic Party. That's a problem for Democrats as they regroup after a disastrous election and a need to rebrand themselves to better appeal to voters. They can start with Nancy PelosiBarack Obama.

Clearly, heris time has come and gone. In acknowledging that, party members need not subscribe to the unreasonable stereotype of Speaker PelosiPresident Obama so cleverly pedaled by heris enemies. All that has to be done is to recognize reality and to thank herim for heris service. There was a big battle. She helped lead the charge. The charge failed. A new House leader must now take charge if President Barack Obamathe Democratic party is to survive in 2012.

Msr. PelosiObama has not declared heris intentions, saying questions about heris future will be addressed in caucusdown the road. Heris fellow party members should find a graceful way to insist she step down as their leader in the House.

It is true that the Republicans are masters of demonizing their opponents, and whoever takes up the challenge will be the next worst person around. But at least the Democrats should make the GOP spin doctors start over and have to work harder at it -- by picking someone who will play better in the nation's heartland.

Tell Pelosi you've got her back.
.

Compromise, Civility??

Huffingtonpost has some analysis:

Barely an hour after President Barack Obama invited congressional Republicans to post-election talks to work together on major issues, the Senate's GOP leader had a blunt message: His party's main goal is denying Obama re-election.

In a sign that combat and the 2012 elections rather than compromise could mark the next two years, Sen. Mitch McConnell on Thursday called for Senate votes to repeal or erode Obama's signature health care law, to cut spending and to shrink government.

"The only way to do all these things it is to put someone in the White House who won't veto any of these things," McConnell said in a speech to the conservative Heritage Foundation.

The Senate Republican leader's confrontational tone was in sharp contrast to the posture Obama took Wednesday in the face of a new GOP-controlled House and Republican gains in the Senate. Obama followed up Thursday morning by inviting Republican and Democratic congressional leaders for talks on Nov. 18 and challenging his own Cabinet to make Washington work better.

Look at who's being compromising and who's being civil. As it had been for two years.

And look where it's got the Democratic Party.

Meanwhile:

[Tom Donohue, President and CEO of the Chamber of Commerce] intends to spend his new political capital by reconfiguring the country's economic policies the same way that large corporations have always wanted to: by cutting taxes, slashing regulation, forging trade deals with foreign countries, and reducing the deficit.

He'd like to start by chipping away at the President's legislative achievements such as health-care and financial reform, which must still be implemented at the regulatory level. In short, the battles between the chamber and the White House are far from over. "Oh, hell no," Donohue laughs. "They are in the second inning."

How does Obama compromise with a party that wants nothing more (and nothing less) than to see him out of office in January, 2013? A party where 4 out of 10 think he's Constitutionally ineligible to be President in the first place?

They're not gonna compromise, Mr President. You may want to live according to Luke 6:27-31, but they're treating you according to Psalm 109.8.

Guess whose parking meters made it into Matt Taibbi’s new book, Griftopia?

You only get one guess.

(Answer here.)
.

George W. Bush, War Criminal

He admitted to giving the order:

In a memoir due out Tuesday, Bush makes clear that he personally approved the use of that coercive technique against alleged Sept. 11 plotter Khalid Sheik Mohammed, an admission the human rights experts say could one day have legal consequences for him.

In his book, titled "Decision Points," Bush recounts being asked by the CIA whether it could proceed with waterboarding Mohammed, who Bush said was suspected of knowing about still-pending terrorist plots against the United States. Bush writes that his reply was "Damn right" and states that he would make the same decision again to save lives, according to a someone close to Bush who has read the book.

There's some more:

The 26-year-old United Nations Convention Against Torture requires that all parties to it seek to enforce its provisions, even for acts committed elsewhere. That provision, known as universal jurisdiction, has been cited in the past by prosecutors in Spain and Belgium to justify investigations of acts by foreign officials. But no such trials have occurred in foreign courts.

Here's the United Nations Convention Against Torture. I know we've done this before but sometimes you just have to point out the obvious again and again. Here's how the Convention defines torture as:

Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Then there's this, explaining if torture is ever allowable:

No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

So Bush's about how it was to save lives, doesn't make it not torture.

And War Crimes? Take a look. The US Code defines "torture" as a war crime.

George W. Bush - War Criminal.

When can we see a prosecution from the Obama DOJ? An investigation by the Obama DOJ? A denunciation of the war crimes from Obama himself?

Um, Guys??

You'd think that sitting on top of a news source would give you access to, you know, facts and stuff.

Take a look at this from my friends at the Tribune-Review:

CBS affiliate KTVA-TV in Seattle fired two news producers at the heart of the never disconnected telephone call who, after they thought it was over, engaged in a conversation that certainly gave the impression they were out to get Republican U.S. Senate candidate Joe Miller. Once upon a time, such antics would have been rewarded. Wow, the revolution really must be under way, eh? [emphasis added.]

That's in reference to this non-story.

Notice anything? It's a teeny tiny mistake that I must admit I missed it first time around.

The problem? The story is about the Senate race in Alaska. So why would the CBS affiliate in Seattle be involved?

The solution? It isn't. KTVA (as in "TV ALASKA") is the CBS affiliate in Anchorage.

Gee, that's an embarrassing mistake for Richard Mellon Scaife's "news" paper to make, isn't it?

I mean, I'm embarrassed for missing it the first time but I'm not the one getting paid to put out a newspaper.

Sage advice that will be ignored

Via Peter Daou last night:


As Joe Sudbay noted:

The President is holding a press conference this afternoon.

[snip]

As anyone who watched cable coverage last night saw, there's a lot of talk from GOPers about spending cuts, but no specifics. They can't deliver.

As I will note, the GOP is trying to play the same old Bush Con: cut taxes for the rich while pretending that has no effect on the deficit.

More importantly, on a larger scale, the GOP's position is:

When the Democrats held the White House, the Senate and the House, they were wrong to hold a "we won" attitude (no matter how much Obama bent over backwards being bipartisan) and that Republican ideas should prevail.

Now that the Republicans only hold the House, again, their cry is our Republican ideas must prevail.

See, Republicans believe that their ideas should always prevail and anything less is not "working together" (and may even call for "Second Amendment remedies").

We need a fighter in the White House.

President Obama needs to have a learning moment like the computer at the end of the movie WarGames. In that movie, the computer finally gets it that nuclear war is not a winning strategy.

Obama needs to learn the opposite lesson -- that he needs to wage war -- that the Party of No will never back down and will never give an inch and that he needs to fight them tooth and nail every step of the way.

Unfortunately, I'm not holding out much hope for that...
.

Marcellus Shale Protest Today

I know that this is late, but if you, say, have some excess anger that you need to get out, here's the perfect venue:

When the gas drilling industry gathers for a Marcellus Shale gas drilling conference on November 3rd in Pittsburgh, we want you to join us in showing them that our lives and our future are not for sale. Join us for a Noon march and a 5:30pm rally on November 3rd.

Please RSVP here to let us know you’ll be coming.

WHAT: MARCH and RALLY against gas drilling

WHERE: The march will begin at Allegheny Landing, North Shore, Pittsburgh

The Rally will be at the David L. Lawrence Convention Center, Downtown Pittsburgh

WHEN: Wednesday November 3rd 2010

MARCH will take place at NOON

RALLY will begin at 1:00 p.m.

WHO: Supporters include PennEnvironment, Senator Jim Ferlo, Representative Dan Frankel, Pittsburgh Councilmen Doug Shields and Bill Peduto, GASLAND director Josh Fox, Allegheny Sierra Club, Center for Coalfield Justice, Mountain Watershed Association, Three Rivers Waterkeeper, Clean Water Action, GASP, and many others.

This is a chance to join others in the greater Pittsburgh area who are concerned about what Marcellus Shale gas drilling could do to our environment and public health here. Join us to make your voice heard!

Special Comment About The Election

Since I have nothing original to say (ever), I found some snippets of what some other folks have written around the blogosphere to reflect what I am thinking right now.

David Neiwert at Crooks and Liars:

...I blame the geniuses in the Democratic Party -- both in the White House and elsewhere -- who failed to establish firmly the narrative after the election that needed to be hammered home daily and relentlessly and fearlessly: that Americans had repudiated conservative rule because it had manifestly proven itself a failure. Instead, Democrats thought "bipartisanship" was more important. Sure it was.

This clearly was The Fox Election. This was a political victory entirely engineered by a fake "news network" that in reality is a relentless and powerful right-wing propaganda machine. Democrats need to wake up and figure out how they're going to beat it.

Then from a few days before the election there was Jodi Jacobson at Reality Check. She starts out saying she was a "soccer mom" for Obama but now has hung up her cleats (it's a metaphor - it means the Dems have lost her support).

She explains her disappointment with the Obama administration.

I never thought for a split second that it would be easy for Obama to turn things around after eight years, or that any of it would happen over night.

I certainly never thought it would happen without a fight.

But the bottom line is I expected him to fight. I expected him to understand that the change many of us sought was the use of political power for good, that we had delivered this Administration and the Democratic Party massive election turnout and a Democratic House and Senate to lead effectively, proactively, strongly, and vocally on economic change, health reform, climate change, energy use, education, women's rights, gay rights, science and evidence. This was not wishful thinking--Obama was on the record for every one of these things in the campaign. [Italics in original]

She goes on:

I did expect him to take action, not to spend months--in fact nearly two years--vacillating between preemptive compromises with a Republican party that set out on November 3rd, 2008 to destroy him before he even took the oath and continuous pleading with them to give him "their ideas." I think we already knew what those ideas were.

One more on "bipartisanship" with the GOP:

I did expect him to put John Boehner, Mitch McConnel and the rest of the wrecking crew in their place, making them compromise with him, instead of the other way around.

If there was an "enthusiasm gap" it's found in places described by Neiwart and Jacobson. Add to that the noise emanating from the propaganda machine known as Fox "News" and the Democratic Party's apparent lack of interest in denouncing every "death panel" lie, every "Obama raised taxes on everyone" lie and you get something close to last night's results.

Not surprising, really. But they blew it. Blew it big time. The biggest Congressional margins in decades and they blew it because they didn't realize that the GOP was never looking to play nice with them in the first place.

And because of that, for the next two years (at the very least) we'll be seeing House hearings on Climate-gate, Hawaiian Birth Certificates, and how Obama's racist Department of Justice turns a blind eye to voter intimidation when the intimidators are two black men in Philadelphia. We may even see hearings on how George Soros funded all that ACORN voter fraud.

And no compromises, no bipartisanship whatsoever from the GOP. John Boehner has already promised that one.

They blew it.

WTF Comcast?!!

Who in the hell at Comcast Cable decided that election night would be a great time to schedule maintenance from midnight to 6 AM???

I'm on hold to chew them out but the wait is long...they must be getting tons of complaints because it just now this minute came back on.

IDIOTS!
.

Greetings from Pennsylvania

.

I Blame Corbett

My Comcast Cable has been out for 10 minutes now.
.

AP calls it for Toomey

.

Fitting

I suppose that it's fitting that both Tom Corbett and Jane Orie won as Corbett refused to investigate fellow Republican Orie (now under indictment in a different venue).

I also suppose we have a good vs. evil thing going on with Christine O'Donnell (I'm not a witch but I did make out on a sacrificial alter) losing and Jane Orie (I speak to the angel lady) winning.

Or something...

Look who's lying!

Via North Pittsburgh Politics, we see that Keith Rothfus is claiming a Post-Gazette endorsement that actually went to Jason Altmire.

You can see the lyin' lit here.
.

Sorry, you're just wrong

Sorry, John McIntire, but you're just wrong.

You wrote:

PREMATURE I-TOLD-YOU-SO TO SESTAKERS

What about PA?

Let me be the first to issue a big fat Joe Sestak "I TOLD YOU SO."

This is a weird year. People want candidates who appear to be "independent," whatever that means.

Arlen Specter was DEFINITELY beholden to NO ONE. Many thought he was a weasel as a result. But it's why he would have been a better candidate.

And now, the guy who WAS the Tea Party before there was a party or any caffeinated brown water to sip, Pat Toomey of the Club for Growth (a MAJOR right wing nutbag "think" tank), is going to be a U.S. Senator.
Plus he's a jug-eared varmint to boot.

Way to go progressives. Heckuva job. You got your wish. And now you've put another nutbag in Capitol Hill. Another tax-cuts-for-the-rich nutbag. And this one can actually think and talk, which could make him even more dangerous.
I know, I know. It all depends on Philly turnout. Blah, blah, blah.

Joe Sestak is toast.

Believe me, if Sestak pulls out a miracle tomorrow, I'll happily look like a fool.

If Arlen was the Democratic candidate for Senate, he'd be down by at least 20 points.

This is a "throw the bums out" year. How could Specter -- who's been in public office for 45 years -- possibly have won in 2010?

Where's his base?

Democrats? No way. They already rejected him in the primary and as pretty much every past primary has shown, there simply aren't enough progressives to make a huge dent there -- rank and file Dems tossed him out.

Republicans? You got to be kidding! Those left in that party have moved ever more right. Republicans would have been running the exact same ads against Specter that they are now running against Sestak. Plus there's the whole "turncoat" factor. They certainly would be painting him as a man you could not trust.

So that leaves Independents. You think they'd have seen him as independent and "DEFINITELY beholden to NO ONE"? Nope. They'd see him as the worst kind of hack -- an opportunist who'd do anything to save his political hide (which is why the Sestak primary ad which had the clip of Arlen saying, “my change in party will enable me to be reelected” was so damn effective and which is why the Republicans would have been running that same clip in their ads).

There's simply no way that Specter would be doing better now than Sestak.

That said, despite your huge blind spot soft spot for Arlen, I know the rest of your analysis on the radio today will be spot on and you always bring the funny so everyone who can should listen to you on The Union Edge. Via MacYapper:

I'll be on the radio Tuesday supplying wrist slitting election analysis on 660 AM in Pittsburgh on the Union Edge radio show with Charles Showwalter at 2pm.
Also streamed live at www.WFRNLive.com

GO VOTE!

What the heck are you doing on-line?

GO VOTE!

Once you've voted, and you've done your part to participate in the democracy, then you can come back and read this blog.

If you don't vote, you can't complain about the outcome.

Even On Election Day, My Work Is Never Done.

From the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review Braintrust:

The folks at Seattle's KTVA-TV insist the incident was not as nefarious as some made it out to be. But it certainly wasn't very complimentary and it might very well be representative of the unfair treatment Republicans can expect if they surge to victory in today's elections.

Here's what happened: A telephone call to discuss Alaska GOP U.S. Senate candidate Joe Miller's upcoming appearance on a newscast never disconnected when it was "over." Station staffers then can, among other things, be heard laughing at the possibility of reporting on the appearance of sex offenders at a Miller rally.

The Miller campaign claims the station was plotting to fabricate stories. The station denies that interpretation as "out of context." Nevertheless, it was enough to prompt former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to label those involved at the CBS affiliate as "corrupt bastards."

See, this is how the great smear works. The braintrust is counting on you not checking the story, not checking the facts (or "facts") for yourselves. They're hoping you'll trust them that they're telling the whole truth.

Of course they're not.

The story popped up at Andrew Breitbart's website first. That should be the first clue that something's amiss. Breitbart, let's all take a minute to remember, lied about Shirley Sherrod. He championed another liar, James O'Keefe. In a rational journalistic world, that would completely undermine any claim of credibility Breitbart has, has ever had or ever will have.

And this is where this "corrupt bastard" story began.

But let's leap like a frog over that part and look at some examples of skepticism regarding the recording.

Ben Smith at Politico:

The transcript does not, in fact, make it terribly clear what they're talking about. KTVA General Manager Jerry Bever, in a statement to my colleague Byron Tau, confirms the authenticity of the recording left (in error) on the voice mail of a Miller aide but says that Miller's claims are wrong abut the details and "absurd" on their face.

If Politico is not good enough a source for skepticism, how about Brit Hume of Fox News? About a 1:20 in, he says that while "it doesn't sound very good" he added that it was still "not utterly conclusive."

Brit Hume said that. NOT UTTERLY CONCLUSIVE.

But let's even assume the "not utterly conclusive" smear that Breitbart and Palin are doing - that this tape is evidence of the TV station making stuff up. What, then, do we make of this?


About 2:15 in, Fox News reporter Dan Miller says that his staff could find no bias or "hit pieces" against Joe Miller.

So, the charge itself floats up from a less-than-credible source. It's not clear from the tape or the transcript what they're talking about. Brit Hume himself says it's not utterly conclusive and then no bias can be found in the station's reporting on Miller himself.

Tell me again who the corrupt bastards are?

Do you remember?

.

Tom Corporate

I know that a lot of my progressive buddies have a Sestak sign up, but refuse to put up one for Onorato (even though they will vote for him).

If you're like them, you might want to consider downloading (right-click) this "Tom Corporate" sign from Penn Action (here) and hanging it in a window.
.