It's official. Right-wing smear and lie campaign in full swing against Sen. Durbin

It's official now. What I warned about a few hours ago is now coming true. The far-right slime machine is going whole hog on Senator Durbin for, oh my, telling the truth about the deplorable things we have done to prisoners in Gitmo, in violation of every concept of decency our country once stood for.

Apparently, the Republicans who dominate the party today, on the radio, online, and in the halls of Congress, think that the only good American is a Stalinist, a Nazi, a fascist, or any other brand of totalitarian thug who beats the crap out of innocents because he can, because we're Amurrikans, God damn it, and if we want to throw you in jail for an eternity, with no lawyer and no charges, and torture you until your head explodes and you go absolutely insane, that's our right because, well, because FUCK YOU.

That's the thinking and the mantra of today's brand of Republicans who run the party and run the right-wing noise machine. The law is irrelevant, the norms of humanity are irrelevant. With God on our side - well, the Baptist fundamentalist God on our side, thank you - they can do no wrong.

The irony is, under the form of totalitarian lawless government these right-wing extremists would wish us have, many of them would be the first to disappear.

Atrios has more. Read it. It's sickening. Senator Durbin deserves the Nobel Prize for what he said. And to some degree, he deserves absolutely nothing. All he did was speak the truth. Have we become so debased as a nation that the simple truth is worth of either a prize or condemnation? Read the rest of this post...

Who's Next?

Rumsfeld blames Syria for the insurgency in Iraq.

Bush meets with dissidents who don't like the democratically elected government of Venezuela.

And now Bush's aides say they have "increasing doubts" North Korea will give up its nuclear weapons program for any reason.

Quick, someone tell Bush he can't be reelected so there's no need to invade another country. Unless, of course, Cheney stepped down and Jeb became VP and said, what the heck, I wanna finish the job my little brother started and ran for President anyway.... Read the rest of this post...

The updated list of GOP Senators who still refuse to cosponsor the lynching resolution

Senator Landrieu, who sponsored the resolution, has a list of the cosponsors AND "supporters" up on her site. Interestingly, and confusingly, she lists other Senators who "support" the legislation, but still refuse to cosponsor. That's a bit odd, and strikes me as some CYA that Landrieu is doing for the pro-lynching crowd. These Senators currently have the choice to add their names retroactively to the list of cosponsors and they're not doing it. And I'd like to know why. Because it's creepy as hell, particularly since they're all Republicans. Walks like someone pandering to racists, quacks like someone pandering to racists...

You'll note that Crapo (R-ID) has now cosponsored, but we discovered that Gordon Smith (R-OR) is NOT a cosponsor.

Alexander (R-TN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
Enzi (R-WY)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thomas (R-WY)

PS We're updating our t-shirts accordingly :-) Read the rest of this post...

VIDEO: Olbermann on Mary Carey!

Oh my. We love Keith. Watch this. Read the rest of this post...

Drudge and right-wingers now think we must goose-step when our soldiers break the law

Would somebody explain to me who's more un-American? People like Senator Durbin who express outrage at the downright dehumanization and torture that happened at Abu Ghraib at our own military's hands, or people like Matt Drudge and OpinionJournal who think that to be a "good American" is to shut up and lie when your troops commit pretty horrible crimes? I mention Drudge because that freak just linked to this story and titled it that Durbin "likened American servicemen to Nazis"!

No, Durbin likened horrendous, criminal, Nazi-like acts to the Nazis.

Again, I ask, who's more un-American? The man who stands up against the increasing degradation of everything this country stands for? Or the far-right shills who defend violations of the most basic norms of human rights, and attack those who would call on America to do better?

What a bunch of fascist pigs. And I always hated people who used the word "fascist." Well, this administration has earned the right to the word. Read the rest of this post...

Bush's porn star, Mary Carey, was just on MSNBC's Olbermann

Keith Olbermann just had Mary Carey on. Apparently it was hilarious. It was the #1 story, will rebroadcast on MSNBC at midnight Eastern time tonight. I've asked Crooks and Liars to tape it and put it up if he can. Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

Hump day. Read the rest of this post...

Another bank merger, employee cuts to be announced?

The initial story is the glorious news of BNP Paribas purchasing the American bank, Commercial Federal for 1.2B Euros. I'll try hard to put aside my own bias against BNP who managed to lose my money on a few occasions and brutalized me with various fees and charges and offered customer service that could only be matched in a communist country (oops! I failed to put my bias aside) but how long is it going to be before Commercial Federal starts dumping staff like every other bank who merges and buys?

So who exactly is profiting here? Surely not the average customer and it's not going to be the employees as we can tell from history. Oh well, more to come in this sector so keep your CV updated if you are working in a bank. Read the rest of this post...

Rumsfeld: Iraq No Safer Today Than When We Entered Baghdad

According to the Times of London, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told David Frost on BBC's Newsnight that okay, yes, fine, Iraq is "statistically" no safer today than it was at the end of the war. After further prodding, Rummy admitted sure, if you want to get technical, the insurgency was stronger today than when the US took over the country (Rummy said when "the Coalition" took over, but give me a break).

And who does Rummy blame? His own foolish policy of minimal troops that still can't keep the peace? (Thomas Friedman calls for doubling the troops there in today's New York Times.) Nope. Does Rummy blame Saudi Arabia, the world's number one funder of terrorism and which has spread radical Islam throughout the Muslim world? Wrong again. Does he blame Pakistan, which has sold weapons and know-how to terrorist groups around the world? Nah. Does Rummy blame his own failure to secure ANY of the massive stockpiles of weapons that the UN had its eye on, that the US knew were there and which insurgents plundered long after Baghdad fell and which have now turned those weapons against our men and women in uniform? No, no, no.

Rummy blames...Syria. Uh, Syria, you might want to remain very still and very, very quiet for the next 3 and a half years. Read the rest of this post...

Downing Street Memo t-shirts now AVAILABLE!

Help spread the word about the Downing Street Memo and help AMERICAblog at the same time. You too can be a t-shirt activist! We've got 15 varieties to choose from, men's and women's, yellow, white, pink, tank tops, etc. Let's face it folks, you wear this t-shirt and people are gonna ask :-)

Check 'em out :-)

Read the rest of this post...

Bush Shows Concern For Human Rights...Sometimes

NOTE: Here's an update to the posting I did earlier on Bush's cynical use of human rights dissidents when it suits his purposes. Bush and Australia are giving the cold shoulder to a high-ranking Chinese diplomat who wants to defect. Chen Yonglin says he's become disillusioned about China and has useful info; maybe he's still reeling from the time Chen and his wife were separated and sent for "reeducation." Everyone can agree Bush is being a putz on this one because China is a trading partner. Per the NYT:

For the left:

Mr. Chen's credentials have not been challenged, and few doubt that he would be punished if he returned to China. He held the title of a political first secretary and says his principal duties were to spy on Falun Gong and pro-democracy activists. By the time he was posted to Sydney in 2001, he said he had lost hope that China's government might change. His job here was to monitor the activities of dissidents, and almost from the beginning, it weighed on his conscience. "It's dirty work," he said.

For the right:

[Chen and his wife] had been student activists in the late 1980's, he at a university in Beijing, she while studying law in Shanghai. They were not married at the time. After the Tiananmen Square demonstrations were put down in 1989, they were sent separately for "re-education," they said.

[His wife] said she was assigned to work in a family planning program in a rural area. One woman she tended to was eight months pregnant with her second child when forced into a hospital for an abortion, she said. The woman escaped, was caught, and an operation performed. The baby boy, born alive, was then killed by the doctors, she said.

When will Bush learn to place American values ahead of cynicism and the coddling of totalitarian governments like China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Uzbekistan (which BOILS ALIVE dissidents) and the rest of his "allies"?

THE ORIGINAL POST:

Bush has made a concerted effort to meet with dissidents from overseas...at least when it serves his political purposes. He's met people from North Korea and even Venezuela -- which shows a lot of gall, since Bush gave the thumbs-up to a military coup in that country because he didn't cotton to its democratically elected leader.

It's all rather puzzling, since Bush has made it perfectly clear he's willing to ignore international law and our own Constitution when it's convenient. And Bush has been a teensy bit conflicted about which dissidents to talk to. He can't bring himself to meet with dissidents from Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. And a major opposition figure from Uzbekistan (Mohammed Salih) is coming to the US from June 27 through June 30 and Bush is AGONIZING over what to do.

Gosh, should he meet with the guy? And what to do about Uzbekistan gunning down hundreds of its own people? Should the culture of life president actually encourage a culture of life? Does the US condemn or support the shooting of unarmed citizens caling for more freedom and democracy? Boy, these moral dilemmas are SO tricky.

Hey Mr. President, meet with human rights dissidents from any and every country in the world or admit that it's all a cynical political ploy and you only support them when you think it might be useful.

If you think Bush should meet with Mohammed Salih of Uzbekistan's Democratic Erk Party, let him know by calling 202-456-1111 (to leave a comment) or email president@whitehouse.gov. Read the rest of this post...

Flag Amendment: Hardly A Burning Issue

The US Congress is seriously close to passing a Constitutional Amendment that would forbid flag burning. And not a moment too soon!

The Citizens Flag Alliance, an advocacy group that supports a constitutional amendment, reports a decline in flag desecration incidents, with only one this year.

We're fighting a war on terror, our soldiers are dying in Iraq, our borders are not secure, most cargo shipments go unchecked, they haven't compiled a list of terrorist names to crosscheck against people arriving in this country and the FBI STILL doesn't have new computers. And Congress is wasting its time protecting a flag that doesn't need protecting. And how much do you wanna bet EVERY Republican senator who couldn't be bothered to condemn lynching is taking the time to support this one? And that they'll hold the vote in the middle of the day and try to curry as much media attention as possible? Read the rest of this post...

Sen. Hatch's office reportedly tells caller "Robert Byrd used to be in the KKK"

Playing dirty, Senator Hatch?

I just got an email from Barry J. Warsch, a former city commissioner in Cooper City, Florida. He recounted the following experience today with calling Senator Hatch's office (R-UT) about why Senator Hatch refuses to cosponsor the lynching resolution, and told me to feel free to post his name so you'd know he's for real:

I called Orrin Hatch's office. I frankly expected more of him. I consider him a sane mainstream conservative, not a wingnut. I expressed my disappointment in his failure to co-sponsor the anti-lynching resolution. The young man answering Hatch's phone dropped into his reply, apropos of nothing, that "Robert Byrd used to be in the KKK". Freakin' pathetic, eh?

Uh huh, and Senator Byrd has atoned for his rather serious sins from decades ago. What's Senator Hatch's excuse for his sins of today? Read the rest of this post...

Senator Shelby (R-AL) lies to constituent to defend his non-position on lynching

UPDATE: I just called Shelby's office and was told that the receptionists are aware that you can add your name as a cosponsor after a resolution passes. I hope, therefore, that there was a misunderstanding when the constituent below called. Unfortunately, several other offices have been having the same misunderstanding.

The debate is over, folks. I just called the US Senate floor and asked "can you add your name as a cosponsor of a resolution AFTER it has passed." I was told "absolutely."

That didn't stop Senator Shelby's office from just lying to a constituent.

I am a loyal AMERICAblog reader from Alabama. I just got off the phone with Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL)'s office. The person that answered said that he has not released any statement saying why he has not cosponsored the bill, but if I left my name and address, they would mail a written response explaining why. After I pressed further and the person checked with some type of supervisor, and they said he was out of town when it was passed and that you could not cosponsor it once it had already been passed.

I argued for a while that you could in fact do so and mentioned how much time he has had since the statement was released to NBC13 in Birmingham for him to do so, but the person kept insisting that it was not possible to cosponsor legislation after it had been passed. The person could not patch me through to anyone else or give me any type of statement otherwise so the conversation eventually ended with the person taking a request for Sen. Shelby to cosponsor the legislation in my name. Is there anything else I can or should do to push some type of answer out or corner these people in some way to get a response?

Yes, call them back and tell them that you know have caught them lying to constituents about lynching and that your next call is to the local newspapers and TV stations in your state to inform them of what Senator Shelby just did. Read the rest of this post...

Orrin Hatch accused Dems of "lynching" judges, yet won't even cosponsor the ACTUAL lynching resolution

I guess in Utah, some lynchings are more equal than others.

Does anyone remember this famous Orrin Hatch quote from the Washington Times on March 8, 2002:

A key Senate Republican yesterday forced a vote delay on federal appeals court nominee Judge Charles W. Pickering, saying the candidate is the victim of a "lynching" by special interest groups over civil rights issues.... "In order to do their lynching, the groups are committed to changing the ground rules for the confirmation process," Mr. Hatch said.

Funny, Hatch calls it "lynching" when you oppose for a judgeship a white guy from Mississippi who's stands accused of being an anti-black racist, but when an ACTUAL anti-lynching resolution comes before the Senate, Hatch REFUSES to cosponsor it, and is still refusing to cosponsor it.

Even funnier, Mississippi's own two Senators, Lott and Cochran, are also refusing to cosponsor the lynching resolution.

I guess Orrin Hatch only gets worked up about lynchings when well-off white guys are involved. Read the rest of this post...

One person making a difference

I'm getting tons of reports from folks calling the Senators who refuse to sign the anti-lynching resolution (which they can still sign on to even today). Here's one inspiring report I got back. Keep up the good work, gang.

Hi John,

Hey, what a great blog. I visit it three or four times a day, just to see what's up.

I've called Chuck Grassley's office several times today expressing "my concern" that his name was not down as a co-sponsor of the anti-lynching resolution.

At first when I asked the fellow who answered what Grassley's position was, he said that "Sen. Grassley supports the resolution". Then I asked why it was that he hadn't signed on as a co-sponsor. The answer: "Well, Sen. Grassley doesn't sign on as a co-sponsor of all the legislation that he supports."

Later I called back again and asked again for him to give tell Grassley that Grassley needed to get on top of this story because back here in Iowa everyone was talking about his absence on the list of co-sponsors and that it made Iowa look "real bad", "like a racist state". And I was sure that wasn't what Sen. Grassley wanted to communicate to Iowans and the rest of the nation.

The fellow on the other end of the line wanted to know what "newspapers or media outlets" were covering the "story". I said that it wasn't that "media" but rather that it "was all over the Internet", that the "blogs were abuzz" with the story; and that "emails were flying back and forth" here in Iowa (which is true, although mainly from me to others). At that point it was clear that the young man was concerned and actually confided in me that he had in fact received a lot of phone calls about this issue.

Then when I read your very informative explanation of what this 'voice vote' was all about and that senators could still sign on as co-sponsors, I called again, and I was really "emotional", telling the fellow that Sen. Grassley simply had to clear this all up ASAP; that he still had a chance to sign on as a co-sponsor so he needed to do so; that "we were watching him" because "Iowa's reputation was on the line."

Who knows what will happen. But I swear that I'm not going to let this drop. Although I leave for Europe tomorrow morning for three weeks, and then to S. Korea for another three weeks, I'll check in to see what you come up with and at the same time keep trying to see what I can get others to do in terms of calling Grassley's office until he either signs on or makes it clear that he's refusing to do so. Knowing who this fellow is, he may cave in and sign on. Iowa isn't a red-neck state... Don't let this story die. People need to go after their Senators demanding that they co-sponsor the legislation: afterall those Senators represent us, right!!! (ha!).

Keep up the great work!!

Read the rest of this post...

Terri Schiavo's Autopsy: Will The Facts Change Anyone's Mind?

NOTE: I was thisclose to posting on Terri Schiavo when John bigfooted me. (Damn him and his faster typing skills!) Here are my thoughts anyway.

Just watched the press conference about the autopsy of Terri Schiavo -- naturally after about 20 minutes, every news channel I checked had grown bored and moved onto their experts or other news while the medical examiners were still answering questions. heck, they've only got 24 hours a day to fill, why stay with the entire press conference?

But the facts are simple and straightforward: there is no evidence Terri Schiavo was abused or mistreated (they pointed especially to the barrage of exams performed right after her initial collapse that would have indicated this). Terri Schiavo was clinically blind, putting to rest the sad delusion that she was looking at people or following a balloon or other actions utterly impossible given her condition. Terri Schiavo's brain was HALF the size of a normal person of her age; in other words she was severely dysfunctional and incapable of the reactions her family and outsiders who hadn't even examined her wanted to imagine she was performing. Terri Schiavo would have choked to death if given food or water via her mouth -- so those fools rushing the security guards to give Terri water would have killed her, not helped her. And no amount of therapy or treatment would have ever changed her condition.

In numerous other details, the medical examiner reinforced the facts that were known for more than a decade and confirmed by every responsible medical professional involved in her care -- both those directly hired by the family factions and those appointed by the courts. Every absurd charge has been undercut or proven flatly wrong. Every sound medical finding has been reinforced when possible.

Do basic scientific facts matter anymore? Are people obsessed with emotional hysteria and a refusal to listen to the facts going to be any more likely to face the truth now than they were during the media circus that surrounded her final days? Will the news channels that insultingly showed that edited footage of Terri with New Age-y guitar playing in the background now show it and state the medical facts -- that Terri was blind, her brain shrunken down to nothing and she was incapable of recovering anything like an emotional response to the world around her? I doubt it.

This is a larger pattern: the far right refusing to face facts on global warming or evolution or the fact that condoms work and are an essential part of any program to combat AIDS and on and on. In short, the far right hates science, hates facts, hates the truth.

One surprise: the medical examiners undercut the diagnosis of bulimia for Terri, which had been accepted in court and served as the basis for a medical malpractice suit the husband won against her initial care providers. The medical examiners noted that the low potassium levels could have been caused by the treatment she received after her collapse. So her initial collapse more than a decade ago might not have been due to bulimia and as you would expect an autopsy so many years later couldn't possibly determine what HAD caused it.

My prediction: conspiracy theorists will jump on this finding to spin all sorts of nutty plots in which the husband diabolically caused Terri's initial collapse. Mind you, they won't have a single fact to support this and his actions for years afterward make the charge absurd, but not having any facts never stopped anyone, did it? Read the rest of this post...

"Lousy Lynching" t-shirts now available

In an attempt to embarrass the hell out of the 15 Republican Senators who have refused to cosponsor the lynching resolution, AMERICAblog is now offering t-shirts to bring the point home.

This is the first of many topical AMERICAblog t-shirts you'll see from here on out. I call it, "T-shirt Blogging." (And for what it's worth, these are the good quality Hanes t-shirts, not the cheaper ones.)

This is the front of the t-shirt (the AMERICAblog.com logo is beneath the text, too small to see on the mini-pic):



This is the back of the t-shirt:



You can buy your t-shirt here. Read the rest of this post...

Pro-lynching Senator might be Bush Supreme Court nominee

Oh, make my day.

Sen. John Cornyn of Texas is flattered to be mentioned as a possible candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court and would consider the job if it were offered. But the freshman lawmaker is hardly seeking a new engagement.

This is the same guy who said he understands why people kill judges.

Oh please, please, please make my day. Read the rest of this post...

Schiavo autopsy results are in - there WAS NOTHING that could be done for her

Gee, what a surprise.

He said she would not have been able to eat or drink if she had been given food by mouth as her parents' requested.

"Removal of her feeding tube would have resulted in her death whether she was fed or hydrated by mouth or not," Thogmartin told reporters.

Thogmartin said that Schiavo's brain was about half of its expected size when she died March 31 in a Pinellas Park hospice, 13 days after her feeding tube was removed.

"The brain weighed 615 grams, roughly half of the expected weight of a human brain. ... This damage was irreversible, and no amount of therapy or treatment would have regenerated the massive loss of neurons."

Remember, her father actually said that if she only had the right therapy she'd be a productive member of society. Then there was Dr. Frist and Dr. DeLay's diagnoses. Oops.

Oh, and she was blind too - so much for the magical balloons:

Thogmartin said Schiavio's brain was "profoundly atrophied" and that the damage was "irreversible." He also said the vision centers of her brain were dead" – meaning she was blind.

Read the rest of this post...

OMG

One hell of an editorial about Senate GOP lynching fiasco. Wow.

So, with the blood of 4,743 lynching victims crying out from the ground for some measure of justice - however delayed it might be - the U.S. Senate used the cover of night, and the more despicable cover of a voice vote, to take not a bold and courageous stand, but a lukewarm acceptance of responsibility for one of the most heinous chapters in American history.

Note: Username is dailykos and password is dailykos Read the rest of this post...

Latest list of Republican pro-lynching Senators

THE LATEST LIST IS HERE: In another post.

UPDATE: AMERICAblog is now selling t-shirts to embarrass the hell out of the Republican holdouts on this issue.

The latest list is up on Thomas. We mistakenly didn't add Hutchison (R-TX) and Kyl (R-AZ) to the list of bad guys. They did NOT cosponsor. They're on the bad guy list now. And remember, they can still cosponsor retroactively, so why haven't they? Call now.

And don't forget to read how Bill Frist vetoed having a roll call vote on the lynching resolution, and how he refused to have the resolution come up during the day when the media would be aware of it.

STILL HAVEN'T COSPONSORED

Lamar Alexander (R-TN) - (202) 224-4944
Robert Bennett (R-UT) - (202) 224-5444
Thad Cochran (R-MS) - (202) 224-5054
John Cornyn (R-TX) - (202) 224-2934
Michael Crapo (R-ID) - (202) 224-6142
Michael Enzi (R-WY) - (202) 224-3424
Chuck Grassley (R-IA) - (202) 224-3744
Judd Gregg (R-NH) - (202) 224-3324
Orrin Hatch (R-UT) - (202) 224-5251
Kay Hutchison (R-TX) - (202) 224-5922
Jon Kyl (R-AZ) - (202) 224-4521
Trent Lott (R-MS) - (202) 224-6253
Richard Shelby (R-AL) - (202) 224-5744
John Sununu (R-NH) - (202) 224-2841
Craig Thomas (R-WY) - (202) 224-6441

LATEST TWO WHO NOW HAVE COSPONSORED

George Voinovich (R-OH)
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) Read the rest of this post...

Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) only supports black people once a year

UPDATE: I just realized that what Alexander really meant was "some of my best resolutions are black."

That's pretty much what his staff told this person who called to complain that he didn't cosponsor the anti-lynching resolution:

I just got off the phone with a lovely staffer for Senator Alexander I called to register my displeasure with him for his refusal to co-sponsor the anti-lynching resolution last night. I told her I would like to have Tennessee's 2 Senators demonstrate a more high-minded, united attitude about such things than their counterparts in Mississippi, who seem content with furthering the racist South image that is their heritage.

She was very polite and read a prepared statement. It started off with a little misdirection: assuring me that he did not oppose the legislation, and that it passed unanimously, and that he didn't co-sponsor "because" he had already co-sponsored legislation celebrating black history month, and that he intended to bring that one up again.

I reminded her that Senators are not forbidden from supporting black people more than once a Senate session, that I wish he would consider doing so more often on legislation that really matters, and that there was no reason for him not to have co-sponsored this legislation, or at least--now that it's passed as a voice vote--to go back and co-sponsor it now, so that his support is registered.

And note that she tried the lie I told you guys about yesterday, the "it passed unanimously." She also didn't respond to the question about why he doesn't cosponsor it now, since you CAN cosponsor retroactively even once a bill passes. Excellent work. Read the rest of this post...

Open Thread

Have at it... Read the rest of this post...

GOP Worrying about Bush's Failing Presidency

Well, well, well. It's finally happened. Ron Fournier from the Associated Press has a piece out today titled "GOP Frets Over Bush's Political Standing." Yes, the MSM has now admitted that Chimpy is not invincible after all:

Fearing that President Bush's political problems may become their own, Republicans in Congress and elsewhere are beginning to yearn for the good old days of seven months ago, when he had somebody to run against.

Voters were worried in November about the economy and the war in Iraq, but they didn't take it out on the incumbent on Election Day. They are now.

Bush's poll ratings are among the worst since he took office, declining in virtually every category since his win over Democratic Sen. John Kerry. From his handling of the economy, foreign policy and the war in Iraq to his job approval rating and voters' assessment of the country's direction, the president's political scores are in serious decline.

So, the GOP is getting restless. Throughout Fournier's piece, there are Republicans who speak on- and off-the-record about how worried they are:

Now, with the death toll in Iraq pushed above 1,700, more than double the number of a year ago, it's no longer a choice between Bush and Kerry.

It's Bush's war. Period.

"There's just a general angst right now," said Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla. "He's paying for his Iraq policy more now than he was before the election. People know we have to win, but they're not very happy about it. So he has a lot of problems and, frankly, nobody to blame them on.

"And the Democrats are in the unique position of not having to propose anything," Cole said.

Beyond Iraq, the economy has risen to the No. 1 concern of voters, according to at least one poll, and every survey shows a majority of voters disapproving of Bush's performance on that issue. His plans to overhaul Social Security have gotten no traction in Congress or with the general public.

Now, is the time to step up the pressure against Bush. He is a failed President and his popularity is tanking.

It's about time the media clued in to this. Read the rest of this post...

28 die in Iraq today from suicide bombers

So does Dick Cheney not see this or does he have contempt for the American public, believing they are just blind and stupid? Is Iraq really getting better? Read the rest of this post...

Frist now accused of trying to veto a vote on the anti-lynching resolution

Okay, now it's getting good.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has an article up (sign in as "dailykos" first name, password "dailykos", and email "kos@dailykos.com") pointing the finger at Senator Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) as the man who refused to have a real roll call vote on the anti-lynching resolution.

Frist then tried to blame the debacle on Senators George Allen (R-VA) and Mary Landrieu (D-LA), saying THEY didn't want a real roll vote to put Senators on the record. Not true, say Landrieu and Allen. They WANTED a real vote, but Frist would not allow it. He did NOT want Senators to have to go on the record. Nor did Frist want the issue to come up at all during daytime, because evidently he didn't want the resolution getting much media attention.

And why is that? Was the Republican leader of the Senate afraid that all 100 Senators would support a resolution opposing lynching, and that would be a BAD thing? God forbid America speak with one voice against lynching black people.

Or did Frist fear/know that far too many of his own party - 15 in fact - refused to endorse the resolution and may have voted against it if forced to actually vote on the record?

Either way, this stinks. Bill First, the Republican leader of the United States Senate, vetoed having a roll call vote on a resolution apologizing to victims of lynchings. He tried to hide the resolution in the middle of the night so no one would no about it.

It's high time we demanded to know why 27% of the Republicans in the US Senate refuse to come out in opposition to lynching. All the Democrats now support the resolution. So why not the Republicans? Or was Howard Dean right? The GOP is the party of far-right Christian WHITE people?

The irony is, Frist tried to lynch the resolution.

And the question remains unanswered. Why don't the 15 not-anti-lynching Republicans NOW add their cosponsorship to the resolution retroactively? It's allowed under Senate rules, so why not do it, if this was simply an oversight on their parts?

Or does the Republican Party leadership in the Senate have no problem with people who would hang innocent black people from trees by their necks simply for looking at a white woman the wrong way?

Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Robert Bennett (R-UT)
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Michael Crapo (R-ID)
Michael Enzi (R-WY)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Judd Gregg (R-NH)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Trent Lott (R-MS)
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Richard Shelby (R-AL)
John Sununu (R-NH)
Craig Thomas (R-WY)
George Voinovich (R-OH)

Find their phone numbers here.

(hat tip to rawstory for catching this story) Read the rest of this post...

Tsunami warning for west coast, Mexico to Canada

Update: All clear now, I hear.

Update: New story here.

From AP:

A major earthquake struck Tuesday night about 80 miles off the coast.

The 7.0-magnitude quake struck at about 7:50 p.m. southwest of the coastal community of Crescent City, according to the
U.S. Geological Survey Web site.

A tsunami warning was in effect from the California-Mexico border north to Vancouver Island, British Columbia.

Residents were being evacuated from low-lying areas of Crescent City, KCBS radio reported.

Read the rest of this post...