Happy Hour Roundup
Fox Skews Poll To Make It Look As If Americans Disagree With Reid's "War Is Lost" Comment
Check out the phrasing in Fox News' latest poll of this question designed to show that Americans disagree with Harry Reid's assertion that the Iraq war is lost: "Recently Democratc Leader of the Senate Harry Reid said that the war 'is lost' in Iraq. Do you feel this was an acceptable thing or an unacceptable thing for Reid to say while U.S. troops are still in the field fighting?" The answer: 29% Acceptable, 65% Unacceptable. Note that the question adds the line about the troops still in the field — a constant GOP talking point — rather than simply asking whether or not Reid's opinion was legitimate or correct. Meanwhile, elsewhere in the same poll, we learn that 57% think America is losing or has already lost the war. It's all in the phrasing.
Conservatives Mobilizing Against Immigration Deal — And McCain
The conservative blogosphere is up in arms over the immigration deal, and mobilizing to pressure 41 Senators to filibuster it. Key point: Lead co-sponsor John McCain is taking a beating from the activists over this.
"Conservative" Fred Thompson Used To Favor Similar Immigration Proposals
Fred Thompson may be criticizing the deal from the right, but Ryan Sager points out that as recently as one year ago, Thompson took a more liberal stance towards accommodating the illegal immigrants already here, and was skeptical of a border fence.
Nostalgia: Falwell Bashed Rudy In 1994 For Welcoming "AIDS-Infected" Immigrants and Gays
Ben Smith has picked up an example of Rudy Giuliani's relationship with the Christian Right back in 1994: An ad by Jerry Falwell, bashing Rudy for allegedly teaming up with the Clinton Administration to welcome "as many as ONE MILLION radical homosexuals and lesbians — many of them AIDS-infected immigrants" to New York City for a gay community event.
Obama And Brownback Team Up
Barack Obama and Sam Brownback are teaming up on a bill to encourage divestment by state and local governments from companies that invest significantly ($20 million or more) in Iran.
Richardson Used Loophole To Build Presidential Campaign With State Account
After his landslide re-election as Governor of New Mexico, Bill Richardson made payments to people who then became staffers for his Presidential — in other words, Richardson used his state campaign account to set up the infrastructure for his eventual federal campaign. The technique appears to have been legal, a loophole in campaign finance law, but it probably violates the spirit of what the authors of campaign laws intended.
Former Clinton-Era U.S. Attorney Ponders Bid Against Domenici
Former U.S. Attorney for New Mexico John Kelly, who served during the Clinton years, is considering a run against GOP Senator Pete Domenici. Domenici is of course a key player in the U.S. Attorney scandal, having been accused by former U.S. Atty. David Iglesias of trying to pressure Iglesias to issue an indictment against local Democrats before the 2006 election. So would a former U.S. Attorney be the perfect challenge to Domenici?
Wu Won't Challenge Gordon Smith, But Vietnam Veteran Legislator Considering A Run
Yet another Democratic Congressman from Oregon says he won't challenge GOP Senator Gordon Smith — this time it's Representative David Wu. Democrats have previously attempted to recruit Reps. Peter DeFazio, Earl Blumenauer and others. However, another possible candidate has emerged. State Sen. Alan Bates, a 62-year old Vietnam War veteran, says he has been considering a bid against Smith for the last six months, but was not going to say anything unless more notable Dems took themselves out of the running.
Democrats Recruit Chabot Challenger
In Ohio, Democrats have recruited state Rep. Steve Driehaus to run against GOP incumbent Steve Chabot, an often-targeted House Republican who was re-elected last year by a fairly narrow 53%-47% margin.
Playboy Head Backs Obama
Christie Hefner, CEO and Chairwoman of Playboy Enterprises and the daughter of founder Hugh Hefner, supports Barack Obama.
Anti-War Dem Will Challenge Kerry In Primary For 2002 Vote
In Massachusetts, former Gloucester School Committee Chairman Edward O'Reilly says he will challenge John Kerry in the Democratic primary, with his major grievance being Kerry's 2002 vote to authorize the Iraq War — when Kerry himself has renounced that vote and become a vocal anti-war Senator.
McCain Is An Avid Pet Lover — Including One That Rudy Might Not Like
Rudy Giuliani might respect John McCain a little less after he hears about this: McCain is a ferret owner.
"Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo: No longer has a pet."
Maybe he deported it?
May 18, 2007 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
He found out that it was a Mexican breed.
May 18, 2007 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is Clinton really leading in Iowa and Obama closing in on Edwards? Really?
If Rasmussen has Bush at 35%, what is he really at?
May 18, 2007 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to one poll, yes, Clinton has moved to the top in Iowa (consistent with the way things have been trending).
Dolores Huerta also endorsed Clinton. Dolores (yes, I know her) is a dynamo with broad and deep connections throughout the Hispanic community. A BIG DEAL!
May 18, 2007 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
The article that mentions former USA Kelly's consideration of a run against Domenici is mostly about campaigning against Rep. Heather Wilson. She and Domenici, both of whom were implicated in trying to pressure David Iglesias into bringing corruption charges ahead of the 2006 election, are apparently both targeted by the Democrats for 2008. I'm assuming the scandal will give the Democratic challengers a leg up and can only wish them the best.
May 18, 2007 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why the hell is Obama doing that?
Yup, Obama, tie yourself to Brownback, he'll appreciate and reciprocate everything you do for him. You chump!
May 18, 2007 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe Obama's doing it because it's a good bill?
May 18, 2007 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Rasmussen has Bush at 35%, what is he really at? -- gqmartinez
I have wonered that myself. It seems to me that, when it comes to Bush, the discrepancy between Rasmussen and "the rest of the pack" pollsters is about 10 points.
May 19, 2007 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fox Poll
Fifty-seven minus twenty-nine means at least twenty-eight percent of the people who think the war is already lost also think that no one should mention it. I guess that is because they support the troops.
May 19, 2007 12:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
A bill to force state governments to divest from any company with any investment over $20 mill in Iran?
how is that necessarily a good bill? I'm imagining the only companies like that, that state govs. might have ties to, are large European manufacturers and traders ... and maybe a few of the biggest Iranian-American import-export types. Is there a reason for automatically giving in to hate-mongering against Iran? They're already capitalist, if Islamic capitalists, so there's no question of spreading our values, yet still, if we haven't already bought the imperialist assumption they have to be our enemies, wouldn't we want to improve business and cultural relations like this? And even for imperialists, the spy agencies need some civilian traffic to hide in.
No, I do not generally support knee-jerk expressions of allegiance to right-wing Likudism and/or any other Muslim-bashing, so I don't think this is a good bill. And I'm v. disappointed in Obama for it, tho I know all the other leading Dems. are just likely to jerk that knee.
Read Juan Cole. There are 20-50 thousand radical Islamists who hate our butts maliciously, who need to be controlled by un-publicized police action in close cooperation with local authorities (the Malaya/Ireland model of actually defeating armed political movements). The only way we make all Arabs and all Muslims our eternal enemies, is thru our own paranoia and bullying.
May 19, 2007 1:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or maybe they aren't thinking at all but just emoting.
Before liberals get too patronizing toward the commoners they might consider how they insist on calling themselves progressives while no one else does.
There is a very long list of words and phrases that excite a visceral reaction from liberals that prevents thought from most of the folk that pride themselves on their intellectual superiority.
Besides the most obvious like Bush and Clinton, blacks and whites, there are the cusswords like frankenfoods.
Liberals generally supported the boycott of Iraq that killed infants and improverished millions while enriching Saddam and consolidating his power as well as spreading corruption worldwide. They now call the invasion that removed Saddam illegal and sometimes even insist Saddam was good for Iraq though he murdered millions.
Glad TPM allows dissent to the liberal orthodoxy. Many sites don't.
Amazing really that so many remain civil. Maybe liberals really are superior after all. :-)
Best, Terry
May 19, 2007 1:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Halliburton has been under fire for contracts with Iran to develop their natural gas. This has heated up in recent weeks under Democratic lawmakers. It has also been alleged that Halliburton supports Iran's nuclear ambitions with some of their business dealings.
There is currently nothing that stops pension funds from investing in companies, like Halliburton, that are bringing money to Iran. That money is being used to support Iran's nuclear ambitions and I simply see nothing wrong with choking off this money.
Iran can give up its nuclear ambitions or be starved for cash. I simply don't care of the mullahs want to blame Americans for their plight. It works because of ignorance, use of propaganda and intimidation (keep up with the female dress nonsense going on now in Iran), and religious zeal. Even a movie--or a cartoon--can be used to inflame Muslims.
It's very reminescent of Hitler and the Nazis inflaming the Germans about the "Jewish problem". That doesn't mean that we start misadventures like Iraq....but it certainly means we can become energy-independent and starve other countries--like Iran with their nuclear ambitions--when it is in our interests to do so.
May 19, 2007 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting that John Kelly ran unsuccessfully against Heather Wilson in the 2000 election. He has enough name recognition, but it will be an uphill battle. If the Republicans continue to implode Domenici could be in trouble.
May 19, 2007 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
....but it certainly means we can become energy-independent and starve other countries--like Iran with their nuclear ambitions--when it is in our interests to do so.
Energy independence would have many benefits but if the U.S.never imported another drop of oil it would simply mean that the rest of the world would have more oil available for a longer period of time. Eventually, every recoverable drop would still get recovered, sold, and burned. Producer nations would see a temporary price drop if we quit buying, importer nations which had not become independent of oil would get cheaper oil for a while, but we would not starve the exporters unless we prevent them from selling their oil on the open market.
May 19, 2007 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess you are right about intelectual pride. I was quite proud that I could subtract 29 from 57 without a calculator. I admit though, that even though my family's eyes tend to be too close together, the extra fingers and toes come in handy.
May 19, 2007 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Again, you start from an imperialist assumption, that we have the right to tell them how and why to develop.
"Iran's nuclear ambitions" are a right-wing meme used to build hatred of all Arabs and all Muslims. The Iranians are well aware that Israel will lead them, by far, in numbers of nukes and means of delivery for decades to come ... and what would happen to them if they shot a nuke, first, at Israel.
And stopping state and local pension funds from investing in the stocks and bonds of companies that might have business investments in Iran is a pretty darn indirect way of getting anything done. You don't think Halliburton is smart enough to set up a subsidiary incorporated in Kazakhstan or wherever so they can say, "_we_ aren't investing in Iran" ? And remember, unless you buy a new issue of stock, the money you pay for your stock investment goes to the previous stockholder, not the company itself.
We don't have the right to ASSUME Iran has all these terrible nuclear ambitions when our selves and Israel have far more nukes and just as much of a problem of our intentions with them.
May 19, 2007 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
The [Richardson] technique appears to have
been legal... but it probably violates the
spirit of what the authors of campaign
laws intended.
The authors of a bill do not have the
power to enact it. What maters is how the
Congress who voted for it interpreted the
words the authors presented.
Similarly, we hear agruments about the
constitution in terms of what the framers
intended. Again, they did not have the
power to force its adoption. What matters
is how the ratifiers interpreted the words
they were presented with.
Further, I think it's a mistake to think
that the authors or framers were all of
one mind about the meaning of their words,
especially considering how each politician
weighs the effect that a particular turn
of phrase may have on the likelihood that
the group's proposal will be adopted.
When you anthropomorphise any group of
people to speak about them as a single
person with intent, that person is nearly
always schizophrenic. --jzap
May 19, 2007 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not assuming anything since Iran is going full-bore into the nuclear arena and is also failing to have inspections to ensure nuclear weapons will not be developed. And I certainly do not support the current Bush policy of attempting to increase our nuclear arsenal. I disagree thoroughly, want it stopped, and want those weapons decreased--along with a lot of our military "toys".
Our country needs to get with nuclear proliferation limits and encourage nuclear inspections of ALL nuclear countries. We have done this in the past and it's time to get back into this. Bush goes the opposite direction with his request for "different" nuclear weapons. Complete BS.
America has economic power, particularly in how our investments are made and we can make full use of that as we have certainly done in the past. Refusing to invest in companies that have ties with Iran is quite within our power to accomplish. We did the same thing with South Africa, BTW. As far as I'm concerned, every smidgen helps the cause of encouraging Iran to undergo nuclear inspections to ensure their claim that they are not developing nuclear weapons. As I said earlier, I also support all nuclear capable countries undergoing the same inspections--that includes America.
I don't hate any Arab or any Muslim--far from it actually. But I certainly don't discount the dangers from the Muslim extremists, as we've seen with various attacks throughout the world. I don't particularly believe that planes flying into buildings or heads being separated from bodies are done by "nice" folks. These acts are done by religious zealots who are used by their amoral "leaders" for political gain. There's nothing "right wing" about recognizing that and taking more than one approach to dealing with it--sitting around pretending that "being nice" will work as the solo approach is simply wistful thinking. Nice, but not realistic.
May 19, 2007 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look, I support a whole-hearted Manhattan-style government funded project to wean our "fossil fuel guzzling behinds". We will have the breakthroughs because we have creative engineers and scientists in this country who simply would love the challenge.
Never sell short what Americans can do; the results would certainly be shared with the rest of the world. What you describe would only occur as we develop the technologies that are needed.
May 19, 2007 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those extra fingers and toes must come in very handy when fighting with wingers trying to tell you you need more kids.
Best, Terry
May 19, 2007 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink