Open Thread

Blogger died again. What a surprise. Mark my word. Blogger will not be able to handle the election traffic and all of us will be screwed.

Anyway, what's the latest GOP scandal? Read the rest of this post...

Rush DID NOT apologize. What do Talent, Steele and Green think?

The media needs to stop saying Rush apologized to Michael J. Fox. He didn't. Think Progress has the video and transcript of Rush today:

I stand by what I said. I take back none of what I said. I wouldn’t rephrase it any differently. It is what I believe; it is what I think. It is what I have found to be true.

Rush stands by his attack on Michael J. Fox. Do Jim Talent, Michael Steele and Mark Green stand by Limbaugh's attack?

Limbaugh is doing the GOP's dirty work. The candidates know it. Their failure to criticize Rush speaks volumes. So, they own Rush. Every reporter covering these races should be asking Talent, Steele and Green if they agree with the hero of the GOP, Rush Limbaugh.

UPDATE: Steele thought Limbaugh was "a little bit over the line" until he was forced to see what Limbaugh said on his behalf:

Steele called the talk show host's remarks "a little bit over the line," but said he really didn't hear Limbaugh's comments. DePuyt then played the remarks for viewers.

"That's a little more than over the line," Steele said.

Read the rest of this post...

Frist tells Republicans to ignore Iraq

Today, George Bush had a press conference that was all about Iraq. Today, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist told Republicans to ignore the biggest issue facing the country:

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist says if Republican candidates want to succeed on Election Day, they should turn their focus away from the Iraq war.

"The challenge is to get Americans to focus on pocketbook issues, and not on the Iraq and terror issue," Frist said in an interview with the Concord Monitor on Tuesday.

Sure, cause if you don't talk about it, maybe no one will notice the carnage. Read the rest of this post...

Opponent of homophobe Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO-04), Angie Paccione (D-CO-04), ahead in latest poll

Angie Paccione is the candidate you guys raised over $22,000 for (and we're still accepting donations, just use the link in the left-hand column of this blog, or click on Angie's name in the sentence above). Marilyn Musgrave is the author of the anti-gay amendment to the US Constitution to ban gay marriage - she is a BIG friend of the religious right.

The new poll is, at worst, a statistical tie. Rob in Baltimore, our polling expert, talked to the pollster this afternoon - since this poll was commissioned by the Paccione campaign, we wanted to make sure it was "real" and not slanted. Rob says this is for real, and he's actually quited excited - which isn't easy to do with Rob if a poll isn't all it's trumped up to be. Rob also reports that Angie does better in this poll than she did in a poll by the same pollster several months ago - that means she's trending upwards, which is also good.

Here is what the pollster found:

Despite the findings of several recent public polls, there’s a reason that national Republicans — who notably face an ever growing and quite costly national playing field—have yet to pull their funding from the expensive Denver airwaves in Colorado’s 4th Congressional District. The reason is this — Angie Paccione and Marilyn Musgrave remain locked in a statistical dead heat, 45 to 42 percent, Paccione’s edge, with Eidsness capturing 6 percent of the vote* — stunning really when you consider that Musgrave and national Republicans have easily outspent Paccione and her allies by as much as eight-to-one at this point in the contest.

Among registered Democrats, Paccione leads 81 to 11 percent with 4 percent defecting to Eidsness. Among registered Republicans, 14 percent defect to Paccione, 6 percent to Eidsness, and Musgrave is at 71 percent. Among critical independents however, Paccione bests Musgrave by a whopping 32-points, 58 to 25 percent, while 8 percent support Eidsness.

In more good news for Paccione and her campaign, Musgrave remains critically wounded both personally and professionally, and it appears that her constant barrage of attacks on Paccione is backfiring to some extent. Indeed, Musgrave’s favorable-to unfavorable ratio has slipped from nearly dead even in late September to net negative today, with a plurality, 47 percent, giving her cool, unfavorable ratings, while just 38 percent giver her warm, positive ratings. Ninety-four percent of the electorate can identify her. Moreover, just under six-in-ten voters (59 percent) say that Musgrave is doing a fair-to-poor job in Congress, while just a little more than a third, 36 percent, say excellent-to-good.

* These findings are based on a survey of 600 likely November 2006 voters in Colorado’s 4th Congressional District. Calling took place from October 22- 24, 2006, and interviews were conducted by professional interviewers supervised by Strategic Services staff. The data were stratified to reflect the projected geographical contribution to the total expected vote. Registered Democrats comprise 29 percent of the sample, registered Republicans 45 percent, and 26 percent are unaffiliated with either party. The margin of error associated with these data at a 95 in 100 percent confidence level is +/- 4.0. The margin of error for subgroups is greater.

Read the rest of this post...

John Kerry is fundraising, right now, for himself, while refusing to give more money to Dem candidates

John Kerry's people had the audacity to call Joe, our "Joe in DC," on Monday, asking for money for Kerry's PAC.

The thing is, Kerry and his spokesman recently said that they don't have any plans to give any more money to Democratic candidates. So why is John Kerry fundraising during the last two weeks of the 2006 election if he isn't planning on using any of that money to help the 2006 election? Are the Democrats Kerry is calling fully aware that he's not planning on using their donations for this election?

Strikes me as a blend between bait-and-switch and ambulance-chasing. Kerry knows people are in a giving spirit, so he's taking advantage of their generosity and their naivete. What a surprise - John Kerry, the man for whom political stunts matter more than results (think: Davos filibuster).

Don't think we won't remember come 2008.

One final point. Evan Bayh of Indiana has actually been the WORST of them all. He's been even stingier than John Kerry.

In addition to Kerry and Bayh, call these ultra-safe House Democratic incumbents and tell them it's time to share their riches with Democrats who are trying to take back the Congress. Marty Meehan of Massachusetts (what is it with their members?) is also being particularly stingy. Read the rest of this post...

BREAKING: New Jersey Sup. Ct adopts George Bush position on gay relationships - some kind of civil unions is acceptable, says NO to "marriage"

UPDATE: Some friends of mine were confused by the title I gave this post in which I said the court said "no" to gay marriage. Let me clarify. The court said specifically that it did not find a state constitutional right to gay marriage, it DID find a right to benefits for gay couples, AND that the court would not oppose the state giving gays "civil unions" instead of "marriage."

Basically, the court found that gay couples deserve the same legal benefits as straight couples, and the court said the legislature must figure out a way to provide those benefits - but that the legislature did not "have" to provide those benefits as "marriage." In the strictest sense, this is a win and a loss for the gay community. Yes, the court said that the legislature "can" make gay marriage legal, if it wants to - but that's not news, and it's also not relevant. The legislature always had the right to make gay marriage legal whenever it wants, provided it can find the votes - a state legislature doesn't need a court's approval in order to offer and pass legislation on gay marriage or anything else (save, states where a constitutional amendment bars legislatures from making gay marriage legal). So the court saying that the state "can" give gays marriage if it wants is irrelevant to the case, and has no legal impact whatsoever in my view. States already "can" do this, if they want.

What is relevant is that the court said that the legislature "must" provide gay couples the same legal benefits as straight couples, i.e., they must provide gay couples with at least civil unions or something of the sort. But the court expressly said that it was NOT finding that the legislature "must" provide for gay marriage - the court even went on to say that if the legislature didn't make gay marriage legal, the court would not find that any rights were violated by this "separate but equal" provision of benefits. That is a loss for the gay community in the same way that "separate but equal" is a loss.
----------

George Bush came out in support of gay civil unions before the 2004 election. He believes gay couples should get the benefits of marriage, but not marriage itself. The New Jersey Sup Ct just ruled the same. The rules specifically says NO to gay marriage, but YES to providing some kind of benefits to gay couples. That is George Bush's position as enunciated prior to the 2004 elections.

Here is the ruling.

Although we cannot find that a fundamental right to same-sex marriage exists in this State, the unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex partners can no longer be tolerated under our State Constitution....

To bring the State into compliance with Article I, Paragraph 1 so that plaintiffs can exercise their full constitutional rights, the Legislature must either amend the marriage statutes or enact an appropriate statutory structure within 180 days of the date of this decision....

We will not presume that a separate statutory scheme, which uses a title other than marriage, contravenes equal protection principles, so long as the rights and benefits of civil marriage are made equally available to same-sex couples. The name to be given to the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to same-sex couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process.

Here is George Bush endorsing gay civil unions in 2004:

Elisabeth Bumiller
The New York Times
Published: October 26, 2004

"President Bush said in an interview this past weekend that he disagreed with the Republican Party platform opposing civil unions of same-sex couples and that the matter should be left up to the states."

"Mr. Bush has previously said that states should be permitted to allow same-sex unions, even though White House officials have said he would not have endorsed such unions as governor of Texas. But Mr. Bush has never before made a point of so publicly disagreeing with his party's official position on the issue."

"In an interview on Sunday with Charles Gibson, an anchor of "Good Morning America" on ABC, Mr. Bush said, "I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do so." ABC, which broadcast part of the interview on Monday, is to broadcast the part about civil unions on Tuesday."....

"I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights. And I strongly believe that marriage ought to be defined as between a union between a man and a woman. Now, having said that, states ought to be able to have the right to pass laws that enable people to be able to have rights like others."

CNN already screwed up their coverage of this. The NJ court did NOT just approve of gay marriage - they specifically said NO to marriage. They said that gay couples should be given benefits in a separate arrangement, which is exactly what George Bush said in 2004. Read the rest of this post...

California Republican says he won't quit US House race if he's charged with intimidating voters

They sent thousands of letters to Latinos threatening them with jail if they voted. Big crime, that one. But he's still gonna run even if they charge with a crime. His biggest concern is how the feds found out about what he did. Well, here's a thought - you sent thousands of letters out under your name threatening people in apparently violation of voters rights laws. Perhaps that's how the feds found out.

No personal responsibility anywhere in the Republican party. Read the rest of this post...

GOP commentator Limbaugh refuses to apologize for attacking people with Parkinson's disease

So much for ABC News' massive screw-up last night, claiming on the air that Rush Limbaugh apologized for calling Michael J. Fox's Parkinson's tremors "fake." CNN just aired what Limbaugh said, and, big surprise, it wasn't an apology at all.

LIMBAUGH: "All right then, I stand corrected... so I will bigly, hugely admit that I was wrong, and I will apologize to Michael J. Fox, if I am wrong in characterizing his behavior on this commercial as an act."

I will apologize if I am wrong? How is that an apology? All Limbaugh said is that if anyone can prove him wrong, some day, then that day he will apologize. That's not an apology. It's not even one of those lame "I apologize if you were offended" apologies.

It's as if the media simply hears the word "apologize" and can't be bothered to dig deeper, to look at the context, to look at what the subject of the interview is actually saying. It's really quite sloppy, and furthers the kind of misinformation politicians are all too willingly to feed the media and the public.

Limbaugh needs to say clearly that he WAS wrong and that APOLOGIZES to Michael J. Fox for what he said. Period. And then we need to hear from Republicans Jim Talent of Missouri, one of Limbaugh's biggest supporters, and a man who is pushing legislation to honor Limbaugh's grandfather, and from Mark Green of Wisconsin and Michael Steele of Maryland as to whether they agree with Limbaugh that people with Parkinson's disease are simply faking it.

What yesterday's CNN broadcast about this here. Then hear what Limbaugh said about Fox and people with Parkinson's, and see the ad that got Limbaugh so upset, here. Read the rest of this post...

We'll be fundraising for Gary Trauner (D-WY) all day

Since we put Democrat Gary Trauner on the site late yesterday, not until 2pm, we'll be leaving him up all day. Still, $6,000 is a sizeable and useful donation already. Please give. He has a real chance of taking Dick Cheney's old seat in Wyoming. And, I strongly suspect, the Republicans are going to be in even worse shape next week, which means races like this will be even more competitive at the last minute. Tomorrow, or late tonight actually, we'll start with a new candidate, we have a few more really good ones who can use the help, and where your support will make a difference.

Democrat Gary Trauner (WY-01): $

Read the rest of this post...

Video clips of Bush saying "stay the course" proves the lie of his now saying "we never said stay the course"

This video is incredibly damning, and brilliant. It shows clearly how Bush has jettisoned his own message on Iraq only 2 weeks before the election, and now wants us to believe that the old message of "stay the course" never existed. This is a president who refuses to admit his mistakes. He refuses to even admit what he said publicly numerous times. He doesn't learn from his mistakes because he doesn't recognize his mistakes - he simply denies them, then tries to rewrite history to prove they never even occurred. What's worse, the White House is now saying that they're not now "changing course," at the same time they're saying that they never said "stay the course." So what is the course?

Had enough?

Read the rest of this post...

Bush Press Conf. Open Thread

Bush is holding a press conference. It's being covered by all the networks. He's talking Iraq and shifting tactics. That probably means he's got a new slogan.

Commentary please...

One thought I had. For months, the pundits have been saying that if the election is about Iraq, the GOP loses. Here's Bush making Iraq an even bigger issue 13 days out. No one believes him when he talks about Iraq and it sounds like the same old thing.

"Path to Victory" "We will prevail"...he's just blathering...using the same old talking points. It's vital to our security, but he still can't explain why. He keeps mentioning terrorists but seems to forget his own government's NIE that said the terrorists are strengthened by our presence in Iraq.

A friend just asked me: Is this press conference a rerun? Good point. The media has been duped again. Bush is doing a political event.

First question: are we winning? Bush couldn't give an answer, although he thinks we can succeed. He doesn't even know what it means to win. The power of liberty will defeat the ideology of hate??? Huh?? But after the reporter pushed, he did say absolutely we're winning. And, Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda.

Okay media: where's the substantial statement on Iraq? You were DUPED again by the White House. You are all like Charlie Brown kicking the football. The Bush team does this to you over and over. It's a scam for free air time on all the networks. The funny thing is that this time, it hurts the GOP. Bush is making Iraq THE ONLY ISSUE and that hurts the Republicans.

Is it me or does the Prez seem especially cranky and irritated today? He's doing that extra emphasis pronunciation thing he does when he's angry. And, he's blaming the media, again. Unglued. He seems unglued. Read the rest of this post...

Active duty troops press Congress to end U.S. presence in Iraq

In an extraordinary move, 65 active duty members of the military are asking members of Congress to end the U.S. occupation of Iraq and bring American soldiers home. These individuals have each sent what is called an "Appeal for Redress", a communication that is legally protected from any reprisal by the Military Whistle-Blower Protection Act (DoD directive 7050.6), asking that Congress act to redeploy U.S. troops from Iraq.

While military (and intelligence) professionals have special restrictions on speech and expression while serving, under military law, members of the armed forces are free to make this kind of protected communication to members of Congress without fear of sanction from command authorities.

It's obviously important for national defense personnel to have different standards than the average citizen, but this seems to me an appropriate and provocative action, indicating the widespread dissatisfaction regarding the scope and direction of our presence in Iraq within the military. U.S. forces are far smarter and better informed than many of our nation's civilian leaders give them credit for, and they know when they're being lied to just like anybody else -- more so, perhaps, because they've seen the failures and the incompetence up close and personal.

There are, of course, many soldiers who support the war. There is no shortage of opinions within the armed forces, but for such a large number to take such a strong, public step speaks volumes. It also may reinforce polling done last February indicating that 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year (i.e., a year from eight months ago).

Iraq is a disaster, our presence isn't making it better, and more and more people know it. This election is turning out to be an emperor-has-no-clothes moment for the Bush administration's Middle East policies, and deservedly so. Read the rest of this post...

Bush campaigns with GOPers in ethical trouble. There are plenty.

Very few of the Republican candidates want the President to campaign by their side this year. He's stuck at the White House which is why he's doing yet another press conference today. CNN says he'll be making a "substantial statement" about Iraq. The White House must have a new slogan to replace "stay the course."

Today's NY Times recounts the litany of Republicans who don't want Bush:

One Republican strategist close to the White House, granted anonymity to speak candidly about campaign strategy, said some Republicans — among them Senate candidates in tight races in Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Tennessee — simply do not want their final campaign images to include Mr. Bush, and have spurned White House offers for help.

Who does want Bush?

According to the Times, one category is "those facing ethical questions or struggling to recover from gaffes." That includes scandal tainted Republicans like Don "The Choker" Sherwood and Florida's Vern Buchanan "a wealthy car dealer dogged by accusations of business improprieties, [who] is lagging behind his Democratic opponent."

If ethical questions is the standard for a Bush visit, the GOP should immediately schedule trips to Arizona for Rick Renzi now that Renzi is under federal investigation. And, Bush will definitely have to head to Nevada for Jim Gibbons. He's a two-fer between the illegal immigrant he hid in the cellar and the alleged assault on an intoxicated woman who Gibbons was escorting to her car. Read the rest of this post...

Ohio deserves better than Crazy Jean Schmidt

If you think Ohio and America deserve better, help out Victoria Wulsin. Read the rest of this post...

Wednesday Morning Open Thread

The GOP scandals keep coming. Don't miss the latest with Arizona Congressman Rick Renzi who is under federal investigation for some questionable land deals.

I'm still steaming over the Limbaugh comments. I have a six-year old goddaughter who has been in treatment for leukemia for the past two and a half years. Fortunately, she's in remission. I want Michael J. Fox to "exploit" his illness if it generates the changes needed in America for stem cell research. Anyone who has watched a love one suffer -- especially a kid -- wants that, too. Well, I should say anyone with an ounce of humanity and compassion which rules out Rush and his ilk. Have the GOP candidates Rush was channeling -- Jim Talent in Missouri, Michael Steele in Maryland and Mark Green in Wisconsin -- said Rush is wrong, yet? The GOP lets Rush do their dirty work. But those three candidates have to own Rush's words on this one.

Okay, need coffee.

Start threading the news. Read the rest of this post...

Hot news flash - terrorist killed in April but now front page news

CNN tows the line, again. Sure the world is better without someone like him, but why the big announcement and hype now? The air strike happened months ago in April and suddenly out of nowhere, it makes a splash. Give me a break. If only Tom Ridge was around to call more alerts, on queue, during the election season. These people are so pathetic and I can't wait until they get thrown out on their asses. I have had it with the fear card being over-played and so-called accomplishments being over-hyped. Yes, I have had enough. Read the rest of this post...

The booming GOP jobs market

Quantity, but quality? Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

This is a GOP scandal free zone. Read the rest of this post...