More Americans than ever say Iraq wasn't worth it

As Krugman notes, even with the surge "working" more people than ever think Iraq was a waste. I think McCain's whole strategy is fatally flawed if he thinks constantly talking about Iraq is going to save him. Read More......

GOP trying to add even more pork to stimulus plan

That's because Republicans are the "fiscal conservatives" I suppose, whatever that's supposed to mean. Democrats need to learn how to shove this right back in the face of Republicans because the spending never seems to end with the GOP despite their big talk. Republican Senator Isakson from Georgia, who comes from the real estate business, wants to add even more tax credits for home buyers. Sounds great if you want to keep the price of housing inflated well above where it ought to be. Is he paying attention to the problems faced by the country or just his own special interests?

Also in the Senate, Democrats are offering rebates for the wealthiest Americans so that Grassley and other "fiscal conservatives" in the GOP will accept a few million for unemployment benefits. Can you imagine, Republicans holding out benefits for the unemployment casualties of their own economic failures just so the richest Americans can get a few extra dollars? As if they haven't been rewarded enough in recent years. This is repulsive and Republicans ought to be ashamed of themselves. Democrats who fail to make this an issue at election time also ought to be ashamed of themselves. If the tables were turned, you know how the Republicans would react. Read More......

GOP Debate Open Thread

Ugh. Another GOP debate. This one hosted by CNN, the Politico and the Los Angeles Times. There are no rules tonight according to Anderson Cooper. John and I will be liveblogging.

AC's first question is are we better off than four years ago? Mitt wouldn't answer for the nation, just for Massachusetts. But then seemed to criticize the state of the nation under Bush.

McCain thinks we are better off. But gave a litany of problems...when AC challenged him, he said we're better off over all. Then he went back to the litany of problems.

The rest of the liveblog is after the break. Once again, this was brutally painful to watch.

8:08 PM: Huck doesn't think we are better off. He blamed Bush -- and Congress (Huck does know the GOP controlled Congress for most of the past eight years, right?) It's not better and it's not going to get better without new leadership in DC.

8:09 PM: Ron Paul says we're not better off, too. He also blamed Bush and Congress (and he's in Congress). Then he went off in that Ron Paul way of his. Talking about empires, etc...the standard of living is going down. Monetary policy, etc.


8:10 PM: Mitt gets a question about whether McCain is indeed a liberal as Mitt has charged recently. Mitt goes off on McCain's record: ANWR, campaign finance, McCain/Kennedy on immigration. McCain/Lieberman on energy. "Those views are outside the mainstream of Republican conservative thought." Slams McCain for the NY Times endorsement.

McCain notes he got the endorsement of Mitt's hometown papers who know him so well. McCain defended himself then lit into Mitt's record of raising taxes. The takeaway is that Mitt and McCain really don't like each other. It's palpable.

8:17 PM: Huck says Rush isn't infallible.

I just realized that the backdrop is Air Force One. Maybe they just should be sitting in Reagan's little office on that plane and pretend they are him.

8:25 PM: McCain admits that global warming exists -- and he chose Arnold over Bush. That surely violates GOP/right wing orthodoxy.

8:31 PM: Huck says we're borrowing the $150 billion stimulus package from China...and we've ignored our infrastructure, which is where we should be investing. Huck keeps making digs at Bush.

Romney used the Big Dig in Boston, which he oversaw, as an example of an infrastructure project. Then he proceeded to mock the Big Dig (which he oversaw) for being something of a failure. Mitt seems really rattled tonight.

8:37 PM: McCain: I was part of the Reagan Revolution. Republicans are out of control on spending now. I was a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution, too. Reagan! Reagan! Reagan!

8:39 PM: Mitt says Reagan would have wanted the Bush tax cuts. He is trying to take that Reagan mantle tonight. Don't be surprised if he ends up in Reagan's model Oval Office at the library tonight.

8:41 PM: On immigration, Mitt explains how he is going to deport illegal immigrants within 90 days. NO AMNESTY. Mitt wants everyone to know he hates immigrants more than the other Republicans. NO AMNESTY. NO SPECIAL DEAL. That's offensive says Mitt.

8:49 PM: AC is too nervous to touch Reagan's diary as he asks Huck if Sandra Day O'Connor was the right choice for Supreme Court. Huck won't diss Reagan...but he is pro-life and wants everyone to know. Ron Paul wouldn't have appointed her. McCain won't diss Sandra, won't second guess Reagan. McCain wants Justices like Roberts and Alito. Romney wants Justices like Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas.

And a break, phew. This is painful. Okay, all GOP debates are painful. I just can't envision any of these clowns being President.

8:56 PM: Citing Peggy Noonan, AC asks Mitt if the Republican Party is better off than it was eight years ago. Mitt says No. But, it's not Bush's fault. It's Washington's fault. Huh? Republicans have run Washington for most of the Bush term. Then Mitt invoked Reagan.

9:00 PM: Mitt is hopping mad at McCain for lying about his position on Iraq. He didn't quite say McCain was lying but referred to others who said McCain was lying. McCain is sitting there smirking as Mitt goes on and on. Mitt really hates McCain -- and Reagan would've thought it was reprehensible.

9:02 PM: McCain goes right back at Mitt. Mocks him for saying he was a governor while McCain was trying to single-handedly trying to save the world.

These two are going at it. Mitt asks McCain: How is it that your the expert on my position?

They're just talking over each other. It's great. McCain is quite smug and smirky.

Mitt is quite upset that McCain sprung this on him right before the Florida primary. He seems to think McCain violated some kind of rule or protocol. It's old-style Washington politics according to Mitt.

9:09 PM: McCain to Mitt: You started it with all those millions in negative ads against the Huck and me. You've been spending a lot of your money on negative ads. Spend it all, says McCain.

9:11 PM: Ron Paul to Mitt & McCain: You agree on Iraq...how many men are you willing to let die.

9:18 PM: McCain is asked what makes him a better leader on the economy then Mitt. McCain says I'm a leader, that's how.

9:20 PM: Mitt is asked if McCain is a better leader on the econony. "NO." I was a governor. I'm an executive not a legislator who sits on committees. Mitt: I'm a LEADER, LEADER, LEADER -- so, basically, McCain hasn't done any real work. McCain sits on committees.

9:24 PM: Would Mitt be an okay commander-in-chief? McCain: I'm sure Mitt was a good manager -- bought and sold companies where some people lost jobs. But can't have on the job training. So, we can infer that McCain doesn't think Mitt would be a good commander. These guys really, really don't like each other. And, McCain is smirking a lot.

Last question: Would Ronald Reagan support you? Duh, like they're going to say No. Mitt and McCain try to explain why Reagan would support them over the each other.

It's over. And, it was awful. Again, I can't see any of these guys as President. Read More......

My take on Obama's new strategy: It's one-on-one now

I have a slightly different take on Obama's speech today than John. First, today, with Edwards dropping out, the campaign is on a completely different playing field. It's one-on-one between Obama and Clinton. For political geeks, it doesn't get much better than this current contest. We are watching two masters of the game engage.

Two things are interesting to me: First, Obama keeps injecting Bill Clinton into the discussion. He did that again today in Denver. Last week, after the South Carolina debate, the punditry were discussing how Hillary was playing for February 5th while Obama was trying to win South Carolina. But, Obama kept making a point of discussing both Clintons, not just Hillary. The media kept wondering if Bill got under Obama's skin. I wonder if it wasn't really the other way around. Obama drew Bill into the campaign -- and Bill acted like Bill does. Only problem is that Bill isn't the candidate. Makes one wonder if the Obama campaign had research showing that the more Bill is the issue, the less support there is for Hillary. She loses the patina of a historic candidacy when the campaign isn't about her. Obama did get the Clinton campaign off its message. Today, she even had to tell us "This is my campaign, it is about my candidacy." (Anyone else hear "I'm relevant"?) That's not something a campaign should be telling us six days before Super Tuesday.

More after the jump...

Second, Obama is using Hillary's language -- the very language she used against him. He kept talking about "Day One." That was a trademark term of Hillary's stump speech. Obama has turned it on her, which is actually somewhat masterful. That makes it hard for the Clinton team to start whining about what Obama is saying. He is re-defining one of Clinton's main talking points. He also talked about Clinton's votes on Iraq and Iran -- and some of the statements she's made during the campaign. But that's fair game according to Clinton. At the South Carolina debate, Clinton said, "I believe your record and what you say should matter." So, it matters.

I don't see what Obama did as all that negative. To me, he went on the offense -- trying to throw the Clinton campaign off their game. We keep hearing that Obama needs to show Democrats that he can play to win, that he can take on the Republican machine in the general election. I think that's what he's showing us. I really don't see it as negative and mean or "blistering." I mean come on, if Barack wanted to get ugly about the 90s, there is plenty to throw out there. But that's not what the Obama did. (And let's not forget, it's the Clinton campaign, and their surrogates, that keeps dragging up dirt about Obama's youthful indiscretions, not the other way around.)

Anyway, that's my take. The dynamics of the campaign changed dramatically today when John Edwards dropped out. Seems like Obama got out in front of it all today. Read More......

Obama eviscerates Hillary

Wow. I'm a bit surprised by the tenor of the attack, and by the attack at all. Both Hillary and Obama get into these mood swings where they attack, then make nice, then attack again. It all started when the race got close, and real, in December or so. But I have to say, this is particularly pointed from Obama.

"Democrats will win in November and build a majority in Congress not by nominating a candidate who will unite the other party against us, but by choosing one who can unite this country around a movement for change," Obama said, speaking as rival John Edwards was pulling out of the race in New Orleans, leaving a Clinton-Obama fight for the Democratic nomination.

"It is time for new leadership that understands the way to win a debate with John McCain or any Republican who is nominated is not by nominating someone who agreed with him on voting for the war in Iraq or who agreed with him in voting to give George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran, who agrees with him in embracing the Bush-Cheney policy of not talking to leaders we don't like, who actually differed with him by arguing for exceptions for torture before changing positions when the politics of the moment changed," Obama said....

"I know it is tempting — after another presidency by a man named George Bush — to simply turn back the clock, and to build a bridge back to the 20th century," he said in Denver.

"... It's not enough to say you'll be ready from Day One — you have to be right from Day One," he added in unmistakable criticisms of Clinton, who often claims she's better prepared to govern, and her husband, who pledged during his own presidency to build a bridge to the 21st century.

So what gives? My take on this after the jump...

Sometimes campaigns go negative when they're desperate and behind. Obama isn't really behind, and has no real reason to be desperate - most commentators don't think Super Tuesday will give us a definitive nominee either way.

It's possible that the Obama folks are reacting to exit polls from South Carolina and Florida that showed more Dem voters thought Hillary was being too nasty than thought he was being too nasty. Though, it's not clear that the appropriate lesson from the polls is to get nastier. But, Obama may have read this as an opening.

Also, this could be a reaction to Hillary campaigning in Florida the past few days - and that's exactly what she did - in violation of the agreement that all the candidates accepted that no one would camapign in Florida (as a result of the DNC punishing Florida for moving up its primary in violation of DNC rules). What's more, Hillary now wants all of those delegates reinstated, after she was one of the people who agreed with taking those delegates away, and even more importantly, since all the candidates agreed not to campaign in the state this is a non-contest that gives us no indication how Floridians would have really voted had there been a real campaign and a real election. Hillary changed her mind because she won. That's pretty ballsy, and duplicitous, and this may be Obama's retaliation.

And finally, it may also be further fall-out from whatever convinced Ted Kennedy to enter the race on behalf of Obama. Nobody knows what really happened behind closed doors, but again, perhaps Obama and company have finally decided to pull the gloves off. (Having said that, friends who watched the Nevada primaries said that the Obama folks already had the gloves off there.) Read More......

Bush will ignore more of Harry Reid's and Nancy Pelosi's laws

Why don't we all just go home now. Bush isn't going to abide by any law that Congress passes, and Congress doesn't really seem to care that the executive has stolen all of their power. So seriously, why are we here? If you guys aren't going to defend yourselves, how can we count on you to defend the country?

From the Boston Globe:

President Bush this week declared that he has the power to bypass four laws, including a prohibition against using federal funds to establish permanent US military bases in Iraq, that Congress passed as part of a new defense bill.

Bush made the assertion in a signing statement that he issued late Monday after signing the National Defense Authorization Act for 2008. In the signing statement, Bush asserted that four sections of the bill unconstitutionally infringe on his powers, and so the executive branch is not bound to obey them.

No, in America we go to court to determine if laws unconstitutionally infringe on the president's powers. The president doesn't just get to decide by himself, especially when he's a blithering idiot. No one in America gets to decide which laws do and don't apply to them. That's a judge's job. But George Bush and the Republicans don't believe in judges, they don't believe in the rule of law. And the Democrats in Congress don't really seem to care. And they wonder why they keep getting screwed. Oh yeah, it's because we don't have 60 votes in the Senate. Uh huh. Does anyone really believe that once we get 60 Democratic Senators in the Senate suddenly the Dems will grow a spine? Please. Come back next year when the Republicans still filibuster, still offer horrendous legislation taking away our most basic and most sacred rights, and the Dems still join them. Then they'll tell us if we just had 70 Democratic Senators... Read More......

All dressed up and nowhere to go

Read More......

Another House Republican is leaving. Tom Davis from Virginia to retire

Good riddance.

House Republicans are retiring en masse, it seems. Tom Davis represents Fairfax County in Northern Virginia -- a district that has become increasingly Democratic. And, you may recall, his wife, Jeanmarie Devolites Davis, lost her State Senate seat in November. Read More......

Ralph Nader is bored again, may decide to put John McCain in the White House to relieve his ennui

Seriously, who is funding this guy? What organizations is he still affiliated with, and who is funding them? He needs to be put to pasture once and for all (what's that slaughterhouse in California, again?) From ABC:

Ralph Nader has formed a presidential exploratory committee, and said in an interview Wednesday that he will launch another presidential bid if he's convinced he can raise enough money to appear on the vast majority of state ballots this fall.

Nader, who ran as an independent candidate in each of the past three presidential elections, told ABCNews.com that he will run in 2008 if he is convinced over the next month that he would be able to raise $10 million over the course of the campaign — and attract enough lawyers willing to work free of charge to get his name on state ballots.

So, are we better off now than we were before Ralph Nader helped throw the 2000 and 2004 elections to George Bush? How has his grand plan helped our country? There has been NO positive change, whatsoever, from Nader having entered either race. The only possible impact anyone can point to is that Nader may have handed the presidency to George Bush, twice. That's all Nader has going for him - the possibility that he's responsible for giving the country waterboarding, the Iraq war, the mortgage mess, skyrocketing oil prices, massive budget deficits, signing statements, Alito and Roberts, Gitmo... Read More......

Waterboarding cows

A shocking video from the Humane Society about how cows, whose meat is used in America's school lunch program in 36 states, are allegedly being treated by a leading cattle slaughterhouse in California. In an effort to get sickly-looking cows to stand up for inspection by the FDA, the slaughterhouse allegedly shoots water up cows' noses, uses a forklift to shove the animals, jabs them in the eyes, and then uses an electrical prod to shock the cows' rectums. Beyond the inhumanity of it all, there's a reason we don't waterboard cows. Cows that are lying down and refuse to get up may, for example, have Mad Cow disease. That's why we don't want to "fake" inspections. Just another example of how disgusting our food supply has become since the anti-government anti-regulation Republicans took over our country.

From the Washington Post:

"These were not rogue employees secretly doing these things," the investigator said in a telephone interview on the condition of anonymity because he hopes to infiltrate other slaughterhouses. "This is the pen manager and his assistant doing this right in the open."....

In the 2004-05 school year, the Agriculture Department honored Westland with its Supplier of the Year award for the National School Lunch Program....

One reason that regulations call for keeping downers -- cows that cannot stand up -- out of the food supply is that they may harbor bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease. It is caused by a virus-like infectious particle that can cause a fatal brain disease in people.

Another is because such animals have, in many cases, been wallowing in feces, posing added risks of E. coli and salmonella contamination....

In the video, handlers repeatedly apply powerful shocks to the heads, necks, spines and rectums of immobile cows.

More from the Humane Society. Read More......

Will Edwards-voters choose Hillary or Obama?

From Chris Cilllizza at the Washington Post:

With Edwards out of the race, the Democratic fight becomes a true two-person affair with Obama and Clinton battling one another for delegates on Super Tuesday and, in all likelihood, beyond. As we wrote earlier this week, Edwards' Super Tuesday strategy of focusing on states in the South and with significant rural populations seemed to make Obama's path rather than Clinton's more difficult over the coming weeks.

Edwards' departure also likely means a further coalescing of the anti-Clinton vote behind Obama -- recent votes seemed to show that process was already well under way. But race could also shape this unsettled contest, and potentially complicate the formation of an anti-Clinton coalition.

"While one can plausibly argue that Edwards withdrawal may unite the anti-Clinton vote, one can also argue that Edwards overwhelmingly white block of supporters come loose and might behave much as other white Democrats have done in the contests after Iowa, not vote for Obama," said Charlie Cook, a political analyst and publisher of the Cook Political Report. "I don't know which of those arguments will prevail."

Read More......

It's Hillary vs. Obama, you have to choose

I don't want to hear about Kucinich. I don't want to hear about "unsure." I don't want to hear about "neither one." Edwards is out, it's now Hillary vs. Obama, and you're not going to vote for another Republican, so you are going to vote and you are going to pick one or the other. Which one is it? Tell us in our straw poll, far right corner of the blog, and jump in the comments. Last straw poll you guys overwhelmingly supported Edwards. Curious who you pick now. Read More......

Edwards dropping out of Presidential race

John Edwards is out:

ABC News' Raelyn Johnson and Ed O'Keefe Report: Former senator John Edwards, D-N.C., will drop out of the Democratic presidential race on Wednesday.

"It just became clear it wasn't going to happen," as senior Edwards advisor tells ABC News.

MSNBC reports Edwards will make the announcement at 1 PM (Eastern time) in New Orleans -- where he started the campaign in December of 2006. Read More......

Another lesson from Rudy's demise: If you want conservatives to like you, lie to them.

John wrote a post last night about the right wing orthodoxy of the GOP that makes no room for moderates. The NY Times has a great article about the demise of Rudy's campaign. Lots of arrogance and bad decisions. But, there was also a quote from a GOP consultant that pretty much sums up the state of the Republican party:

“It bordered on science fiction to think that someone as liberal on as many issues as Rudy Giuliani could become the Republican nominee,” said Nelson Warfield, a Republican consultant who has been a longtime critic of the former mayor. “Rudy didn’t even care enough about conservatives to lie to us. The problem wasn’t the calendar; it was the candidate.”

If you care about conservatives, lie to them. They accept that over an honest debate. That says so much about today's GOP. Read More......

Wednesday Morning Open Thread

Morning.

I'm thinking Mitt is sounding a bit petulant. His speech last night, this morning on the Today Show. Mitt wants to be president. He is spending a lot of his own money. It's not fair that he's not winning. Plus, McCain's been playing dirty. Mitt is going to have to get even uglier to get his momentum back. We already know he'll say anything....

McCain vs. Romney leaves a lot of GOPers unhappy.

Six more days til Super Tuesday. Given the intensity and breathlessness of the reporting, I think some of the pundits may just lose their minds over the next couple days.

Have at it. Read More......

FBI investigating subprime business

UBS just announced another ugly write-down, $14 billion and a $4 billion loss for 2008, and that won't be the last of it for the industry. How can the former CEOs continue to hold their millions when it was based on such bogus business? Now that the investigation is moving, will anything come of it?

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has opened criminal inquiries into 14 companies as part of a wide-ranging investigation of the troubled mortgage industry, F.B.I. officials said Tuesday.

The F.B.I. said it was looking into possible accounting fraud, insider trading or other violations in connection with loans made to borrowers with weak, or subprime, credit.

The agency declined to identify the companies under investigation but said the inquiry, which began last spring, involves companies across the financial industry, including mortgage lenders, loan brokers and Wall Street banks that packaged home loans into securities.

Read More......

Dinner, courtesy of chemical industry

Yum, is that Roundup that I'm tasting?

Government promises to rid the nation's food supply of brain-damaging pesticides aren't doing the job, according to the results of a yearlong study that carefully monitored the diets of a group of local children.

The peer-reviewed study found that the urine and saliva of children eating a variety of conventional foods from area groceries contained biological markers of organophosphates, the family of pesticides spawned by the creation of nerve gas agents in World War II.

When the same children ate organic fruits, vegetables and juices, signs of pesticides were not found.

The chemical industry always tells consumers (and Congress) that chemical can't pass on through the food chain. The fact is that this is simply not true. A key component of health care and maintaining health care costs is prevention. Are we going to get serious about this or will Congress continue to allow Monsanto and others to sell their chemicals regardless of impact on humans? Read More......

Global Democratic Primary for Americans living outside of US

As much as it pains me to give credit to the Democrats Abroad, at least the Paris group, this is pretty cool. The initial information that was sent out did not make it clear that this vote would actually count. We have to wait until the main election to send our ballots by registered mail or FedEx at our own expense and then have our votes shoved in to a remote closet, never to be viewed again. (Thanks to everyone in Washington for helping the millions of Americans abroad feel like we're part of the process.)

Americans living outside of the US will be able to either vote online or in person and the votes will count at the convention in August. Click here to register with the Democrats Abroad or you can do it in person at your location between 5-12 February. Here is the list of where you can vote in person.

The worldwide election results will determine the 14 delegates who will join eight DNC members in Democrats Abroad’s delegation of 22 to the Democratic National Convention. These delegates will be elected at a combination of regional and global meetings held during early 2008. These meetings also provide an opportunity for Americans abroad to shape the party's election platform.

Ah yes, they're throwing in a few SuperDelegates to make sure we don't vote for the "wrong" person. Even when they're doing good, they're doing bad. Read More......