Fri Apr 2nd, 2004 at 22:26:19 GMT
General 2004 :: Link & Discuss (11 comments)
| Donate |
|
Help John Kerry take on Bush's $200 million. $48,349 raised to date, 566 donors
Help the Democratic Party raise the money it needs to defeat Bush. $60,776 raised to date, 636 donors. Help the DSCC in the battle for 51. $852 raised to date. Help the DCCC take back the House. |
icon saves story in your Hotlist box.|
Another reason to love the Economist
|
|
Trouble For Daschle?
by DHinMI
Fri Apr 2nd, 2004 at 20:59:39 GMT Tom Daschle may be leading in his bid for reelection to the Senate, but he might have a harder time than previously thought:
Tim Giago now plans to run as an independent for the U.S. Senate, a move expected to change the complexion of a South Dakota race full of national implications. Giago, of Rapid City, publisher of the Lakota Journal, had planned to challenge Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle in the June 1 Democratic Party primary, with the winner to face Republican John Thune in November. But Giago said switching his effort to the fall gives him more time to get petitions signed and gives him a greater forum for discussion of Native American issues. "Our issues need to be analyzed, put on the table and discussed," he said... The significance of Giago's decision "can't be overstated," said Dick Wadhams, Thune's campaign manager. "This is clearly bad news for Tom Daschle," he said. "Anytime you have an election that appears to be as close as this one - any development like this is huge." In 2002, Libertarian Kurt Evans ran against Sen. Tim Johnson and Thune, but decided to drop out a few days before the election. His name stayed on the ballot and he received 3,070 votes. Johnson defeated Thune by 528 votes. Giago could split Native American votes, [Wadhams] said... It is of no concern to Giago if his candidacy hurts Daschle or Thune, he said. "That is the chance you take," Giago said. He looks to Colorado Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell's long-shot bid in his first election as a model of what can be done. "They laughed at him, and I am sure people will chuckle at me," he said. We've heard all of that before. Giago seems to be a decent guy who's been widely honored for his journalism and advocacy on issues important to Native Americans. But putting issues on the table to be discussed doesn't by itself do anything to address the crushing poverty and roughly 50%-plus unemployment found on many reservations; a Republican-led Senate presided over by Bill Frist may listen to issues, but it won't be as interested in actually doing something about Native-American issues as would a Democratic Senate presided over by Daschle. According to Giago, "the Indian nations should appoint an Indian candidate to run in every major election. This will give them the opportunity to get their issues out on the table. In some states, this may be the only way and the only time that Indian issues will ever be discussed or debated." Despite what Giago may think, this notion is completely at odds with the example set by Ben Nighthorse Campbell. Campbell didn't enter his first election to widen the debate. In 1982 Campbell was drafted by Democrats to run for the state legislature, and he spent $13,000 of his own money in an attempt to win. Campbell won that race and every one since. Giago may honestly believe that his candidacy will help Native Americans in South Dakota and across the country. Let's hope that Giago steps back and looks not just as the example of Ralph Nader, but also reconsiders what he believes are the lessons of the 2002 SD Senate campaign:
The Indian vote put Senator Tim Johnson into office in the last election. He won the state by a mere 524 votes and those votes came from the last precinct counted, the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. On his television show Crossfire, Robert Novak accused the people of the Great Sioux Nation of "stuffing ballot boxes." It pointed out to me that the Indian vote has been taken for granted for far too long. I believe that if the Indians of South Dakota line up behind an Indian candidate and can show the power of their vote, it will wake up politicians across Indian country that the Indian vote is not to be taken for granted ever again.
The lesson here isn't that the Indian vote is being taken for granted, the lesson is that the Indian vote is invaluable to SD Democrats who hope to win a close statewide election. Just when the value of Native American votes in SD is highest, Giago's candidacy has the potential to diminish that value. Let's hope Giago realizes the destructive potential of his candidacy before it's too late.
|
|
Polls and More Polls
by DemFromCT
Fri Apr 2nd, 2004 at 20:34:01 GMT Have you ever fired anyone? It's a very painful process. First you have to be convinced it's necessary, then you have to have an alternative and finally, you have to pull the trigger. It's hard, whether you're firing a baby-sitter, a co-worker or a President. As noted by several diarists today, the CBS poll (pre-Fallujah) is out and Bush takes some major hits on credibility.
The Congressional hearings on what happened before Sept. 11 appear to have raised concerns about both the Bush administration's credibility and its overall performance, even on the issue on which the administration may be staking its re-election. The latest CBS News poll, conducted Tuesday through Thursday, shows declines in the president's approval ratings in a number of policy areas, but especially changes in the evaluation of the president's handling of terrorism. Six in ten Americans are following the hearings closely; 56 percent say the administration is cooperating with the panel. But what the administration is saying does not receives high marks: 59 percent say it is hiding something it knew before Sept. 11, and 11 percent even say it is lying. Only one in four think the administration is telling the entire truth. While the Rasmussen tracking poll concentrates on the Bush-Kerry head-to-head (today it's Bush 47%, Kerry 44%), the two continue to jockey for position as Kerry disappears for his shoulder surgery. In fact, these were the numbers two, four and six weeks ago. Meanwhile, Bush's job approval is at 53% in the Rasmussen, 49% in the CBS and 51% in the LA Times polls (see Polling report for details). What to make of all of this? The job ratings and head-to-heads show a static race, but underneath, there's angst and anxiety as to whether Bush is going to be hired or fired for another term. Every accusation from another 'insider' or whistleblower feeds into this anxiety. Now the story shifts to the FBI translator who warned of plane threats.
A former translator for the FBI with top-secret security clearance says she has provided information to the panel investigating the 11 September attacks which proves senior officials knew of al-Qa'ida's plans to attack the US with aircraft months before the strikes happened. She said the claim by the National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, that there was no such information was "an outrageous lie". We know Condi will be asked about this next Thursday by the 9/11 commission. According to the Independent,
Sibel Edmonds said she spent more than three hours in a closed session with the commission's investigators providing information that was circulating within the FBI in the spring and summer of 2001 suggesting that an attack using aircraft was just months away and the terrorists were in place. The Bush administration, meanwhile, has sought to silence her and has obtained a gagging order from a court by citing the rarely used "state secrets privilege". And already as a result CBS says:
Most Americans view terrorism as something that a President CAN do something about - 52% now say this, up from 45% a year ago.
The polls will bounce up and down for weeks and months to come. But Bush's once invincible aura of hyper-competence over the terrorism issue is gone. Now it's up to Kerry to make the case that he's got an alternative plan, for Iraq, the economy and the war on terror. That case doesn't have to be made immediately, but it certainly has to be made. You can't fire someone without knowing who is going to take their place.
|
|
Mercenaries, war, and my childhood
by kos
Fri Apr 2nd, 2004 at 17:57:39 GMT There's been much ado about my indifference to the Mercenary deaths in Falluja a couple days ago. I wrote in some diary comments somewhere that "I felt nothing" and "screw them". My language was harsh, and, in reality, not true. Fact is, I did feel something. That's why I was so angry. I was angry that five soldiers -- the real heroes in my mind -- were killed the same day and got far lower billing in the newscasts. I was angry that 51 American soldiers paid the ultimate price for Bush's folly in Iraq in March alone. I was angry that these mercenaries make more in a day than our brave men and women in uniform make in an entire month. I was angry that the US is funding private armies, paying them $30,000 per soldier, per month, while the Bush administration tries to cut our soldiers' hazard pay. I was angry that these mercenaries would leave their wives and children behind to enter a war zone on their own violition. So I struck back. Unlike the vast majority of people in this country, I actually grew up in a war zone. I witnessed communist guerillas execute students accused of being government collaborators. I was 8 years old, and I remember stepping over a dead body, warm blood flowing from a fresh wound. Dodging bullets while at market. I lived in the midsts of hate the likes of which most of you will never understand (Clinton and Bush hatred is nothing compared to that generated when people kill each other for politics or race or nationality). There's no way I could ever describe the ways this experience colors my worldview. Back to Iraq, our men and women in uniform are there under orders, trying to make the best of an impossible situation. The war is not their fault, and I will always defend their honor and bravery to the end of my days. But the mercenary is a whole different deal. They willingly enter a war zone, and do so because of the paycheck. They're not there for humanitarian reasons (I doubt they'd donate half their paycheck to the Red Cross or whatever). They're there because the money is DAMN good. They answer to no one except their CEO. They are dangerous, hence international efforts (however fruitless they may be) to ban their use.
So not only was I wrong to say I felt nothing over their deaths, I was lying. I felt way too much. Nobody deserves to die. But in the greater scheme of things, there are a lot of greater tragedies going on in Iraq (51 last month, plus countless civilians and Iraqi police). That those tragedies are essentially ignored these days is, ultimately, the greatest tragedy of all.
|
|
MyDD is coming back; Air America
by kos
Fri Apr 2nd, 2004 at 17:00:24 GMT Jerome Armstrong's MyDD is easing back into the scene. I have a lot of affection for MyDD. Sure, Jerome my business partner these days, but more importantly, MyDD is the blog that started me blogging. Without MyDD, I may never have created this site.
Meanwhile, Atrios reports big traffic increases over the past few days, something Daily Kos has also enjoyed. There is only one explanation -- Air America. As our message expands to new media outlets, we can't help but increase the size of our audience. We help drive Air America listenership, and they return the favor. True synergy.
|
|
Another Bush Flip Flop list
by kos
Fri Apr 2nd, 2004 at 16:35:54 GMT That darn Bush. Does he stand for anything? His governance has been just one flip flop after another. CAP puts together a well-documented flip flop list. Get all the details by clicking the link above, but to summarize:
Bush Administration :: Link & Discuss (33 comments) |
|
Science Friday: In Space, No One Can Hear You Scream
by theoria
Fri Apr 2nd, 2004 at 14:12:49 GMT I know that Science Friday is usually a breath of fresh air, sweeping you, however briefly, away from the troubles of the day. Not today.
Today we're going to talk about Bush's master plan of making the Earth uninhabitable, only to flee to his PNAC Tree-House on the Moon (NO GURLZ ALOUD) where he can read Archie comics in peace, drink the
Shooting Stars U.S. Military Takes First Step Towards Weapons in Space By Marc Lallanilla, ABC News For all of human history, people have looked at the stars with a sense of wonder. More recently, some U.S. military planners have looked skyward and seen something very different -- the next battlefield. While the military's presence in space stretches back decades, now there appears to be a new emphasis. Officials in the Bush administration and the Department of Defense are actively pursuing an agenda calling for the unprecedented weaponization of space. The first real step in that direction appears to be coming in the form of a little-noticed weapons program at the U.S. Missile Defense Agency. The agency has now earmarked $68 million in 2005 for something called the Near Field Infrared Experiment. The NFIRE satellite is primarily designed to gather data on exhaust plumes from rockets launched from earth, and defense officials claim it is therefore designed as a defensive, rather than offensive weapons. But the satellite will also contain a smaller "kill vehicle," a projectile that takes advantage of the kinetic energy of objects traveling through low-Earth orbit (which move at several times the speed of a bullet) to disable or destroy an oncoming missile or another orbiting satellite.
As one senior government official and defense expert described the program, which has seen cost-related delays and increased congressional scrutiny: "We're crossing the Rubicon into space weaponization." We've seen Bush living out every yuppie childhood fantasy he's ever had. First as Roy Rogers, then as G.I. Joe, then quickly on to Chuck Yeager. Given that progression, it was only a matter of time before he made his way to Buck Rogers.
But the idea of weapons in space is greeted coldly by some. "Weapons in space are not inevitable. If it were, it would have happened already," argued the senior defense expert, adding, "We should instead be taking the lead to make [weapons] agreements with other countries." Indeed, other nations have moved for the non-militarization of space. As early as 1967, for example, the United Nations brokered the Outer Space Treaty, which prohibits the use of weapons of mass destruction in space. The United States is a signatory to the treaty. Summarizing the differences between the United States and European views on space was Jean-Jacques Dordain, head of the European Space Agency, who said in a recent interview: "For the U.S., space is an instrument of domination -- information domination and leadership. Europe should be proposing a different model -- space as a public good." -- Criticism of the U.S. plans to weaponize space is not limited to Europeans. The Washington, D.C.-based Center for Defense Information, a non-governmental organization founded by retired senior U.S. military offices, said in a 2002 report, "Space is already 'militarized' by both military and commercial satellites. The only practical place to draw the line today is space weaponization."
Concluded the report: "The United States has and will continue to have more interests in space assets both civil and military than most countries, and it will retain a net benefit if no one [including the United States itself] has weapons in space." I look forward to the days when we will once again be a beacon for the rest of the world.</tongueslightlyincheek>
Until then, we can only hope that the next childhood fantasy that Bush gloms onto is the one that he should have tried in the first place... President of the United States.
|
|
Open Thread
by kos
Fri Apr 2nd, 2004 at 06:51:38 GMT Another open thread. Open Threads :: Link & Discuss (106 comments) |
|
Mercenaries flock into Iraq
by kos
Fri Apr 2nd, 2004 at 06:17:44 GMT Given the manpower shortage, it's no surprise that private for-hire armies are filling the vacuum. The US has so far spent $20bn on reconstruction in Iraq. The companies which have won these contracts currently expect to spend about 10% of their budgets on providing personal security planning and protection for their workers. And why is this a problem?Industry insiders say the war has proven a godsend for British security firms - which have picked up much of the work. Their revenues are estimated to have risen fivefold, from around $350m before the invasion to nearly $2bn. The field of private security is unregulated, and alongside the more reputable companies, gun-slinging, cowboy contractors - whether foreign or Iraqi - are reported to be setting up shop Iraq. Impunity. Established companies dislike competition from smaller entrepreneurs, but also worry that their reputations may be damaged by the gung-ho approach of some of the newer firms. The lack of regulation means mercenaries can often act with impunity. Stories abound of heavy handed and trigger-happy behaviour. There are reports that some private security companies claim powers to detain people, erect checkpoints without authorisation and confiscate identity cards. The four merceneries killed yesterday worked for Blackwater Security Consulting. They claim they were in the area "protecting food conviys", but "declined to provide further deails. Even Tacitus, my good friend on the Right, doesn't buy the cover story: The question is: what were they doing in Fallujah? The Blackwater press release states that they were part of an operation to guard food deliveries in the area. This strikes me as likely false: Iraqis aren't starving, guerrillas have not targeted food supplies in any case, and thievery is much more likely to strike transports of manufactured goods. Furthermore, even if food shipments did need armed guards, what's the chance that the CPA has hired highly-trained (and quite expensive) ex-SEAL-types to do it? About zero. Cheaper, and probably as effective, to have Iraqis on the job [...] As Tacitus notes, there should be no room for merceneries in war, especially since the rules of war forbid it. If we don't have the forces to take care of our own convoys and maintain local security, that just one more indictment of this administration's pathetic post-war planning.This, though, does not explain what four of these personnel were doing sans convoy, traveling through the town proper. Lost? Reckless? On their way to a meetup with a client? En route to a hit? One may justly wonder. Update: More on Blackwater: Blackwater has about 400 employees in Iraq, said one government official briefed by the company. Its armed commandos earn an average of just under $1,000 a day. The mercenaries weren't delivering humanitarian supplies. They were supposedly delivering supplies to a private company, Regency Hotel and Hospitality. Although most of their work is to act as bodyguards for corporate, humanitarian or government employees, they sometimes perform more precarious jobs that are inherently riskier -- escorting VIPs, doing reconnaissance for visits by government officials to particular locations.
No one pays $1,000 a day per mercenary to deliver humanitarian supplies.
|
|
Plame Affair heats up
by kos
Fri Apr 2nd, 2004 at 05:34:06 GMT This is not good for the White House. Not good at all... Prosecutors investigating whether someone in the Bush administration improperly disclosed the identity of a C.I.A. officer have expanded their inquiry to examine whether White House officials lied to investigators or mishandled classified information related to the case, lawyers involved in the case and government officials say. Well, obviously White House officials lied. I think we'll all die of a stroke the day they tell a truth. But wait, there's more:In looking at violations beyond the original focus of the inquiry, which centered on a rarely used statute that makes it a felony to disclose the identity of an undercover intelligence officer intentionally, prosecutors have widened the range of conduct under scrutiny and for the first time raised the possibility of bringing charges peripheral to the leak itself. So Republicans have seen their fears realized, after Ashcroft was no longer able to railroad the investigation being conducted -- let's not forget -- by a Republican special prosecutor. So not only are Republicans sweating this investigation, they can't dismiss it as petty partisan politics. The expansion of the inquiry's scope comes at a time when prosecutors, after a hiatus of about a month, appear to be preparing to seek additional testimony before a federal grand jury, lawyers with clients in the case said. It is not clear whether the renewed grand jury activity represents a concluding session or a prelude to an indictment. The broadened scope is a potentially significant development that represents exactly what allies of the Bush White House feared when Attorney General John Ashcroft removed himself from the case last December and turned it over to Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the United States attorney in Chicago.
And to think, this is just one of 11-12 investigations prominent Republicans currently face.
|
| Next 10 >> |
| Menu |
|
· Create account
· Home · About · · FAQ · Diaries · Senate Outlook · Electoral Calculator · Money Map · Legacy Daily Kos · Fishyshark (my other blog) |
| Archives |
|
|
| Login | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| Recent Diaries |
|
Bush and Cheney..Together At Last..But Not as you've Always... by sula - April 2 Reality in Fallujah by dcdanny - April 2 Go Pelosi! by cyclopatra - April 2 5 comments On Kos, On LGF, On Advertising, And On Substance by freelixir - April 2 4 comments The Criminal Rove by El Payo - April 2 3 comments Not Another Kerry-McCain Diary . . ? by MRL - April 2 20 comments Support Kos by NohoMissives - April 2 60 comments Kos's Dean Scream by br284 - April 2 19 comments Message To Kerry: Spend Your Money NOW by glibfidget - April 2 9 comments Political Koan of the Week: One Road by Corax - April 2 More Diaries... |
| Poll Watch |
|
Poll Watch
HEAD-TO-HEAD MATCHUPS For historical poll numbers for most of the outfits below, you can't beat the Polling Report. National
Gallup 3/26-28
SurveyUSA 3/19
Rasmussen 3/1-13
Rasmussen 3/23
Rasmussen 3/14-16
Rasmussen 3/23
Rasmussen 3/23
ARG 3/18
UCincy 3/10-22
Q-poll 3/9-15
ARG 3/24
ARG 3/23-25 |
