Nudder open thread

Warm. Read the rest of this post...

Dems. love to eat their own

UPDATE: TalkLeft weighs in as well.

Why is it that Democrats just love to attack their own? Howard Dean makes a fairly innocuous criticism of Republicans. The response? He gets dumped on by leading Democrats, John Edwards and Joe Biden, both of whom are (surprise, surprise) thinking about running for President themselves. The "controversy," such as it is, is over these remarks, as reported by AP:

While discussing the hardship of working Americans standing in long lines to vote, Dean said Thursday, “Republicans, I guess, can do that because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives.” Dean said later his comments did not refer to hard-working Americans, but rather to the failure of Republican leadership to address working-class concerns.

Dean also said he thinks Tom DeLay should be in jail. So what's the problem? The GOP doesn't care about working class concerns and Tom DeLay probably will be in jail (and certainly should). So, again, what's the big deal?

This looks like another one of those cases where the Right Wing media machine ginned up over Dean's comments... fed them to the media.... who then got Democrats (who conveniently are running for president, so they want to knock Dean out of the picture) to bash Dean. Seriously, the GOP must just sit back and laugh over how easy it is. Our people fall for it every time. They got this headline from AP: "Dems Blast Dean For GOP Remarks".

Joe Biden, appearing on "This Week," jumped on Dean.

Dean “doesn't speak for me with that kind of rhetoric and I don't think he speaks for the majority of Democrats,” Biden, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Sunday on ABC's “This Week.”

John Edwards got on the Dean-bashing bandwagon, too:

Responding to Dean's initial remark, Edwards said Dean “is not the spokesman for the party.”

Dean is “a voice. I don't agree with it,” Edwards, a former senator and the Democrats' vice presidential nominee in 2004, said Saturday at a party fundraising dinner in Nashville, Tenn.

Hmmm. John Edwards was singing a different tune just a few days ago at the Take Back America Conference that John and I both attended. According to the Washington Post:

Former Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards, who spoke later in the day, took aim at critics who say Democrats should modify their positions to make themselves more appealing to the public. "How about if we actually stand up and fight with passion for what we believe in?" he said to cheers from the audience.

Yeah, Mr. Edwards. How about if we actually stand up and fight with passion rather than - oh I don't know - think some pretty boy smile is going to win us the election? Oh that's right, you're only for passion when you're wooing Democratic audiences behind closed doors. Silly me.

Meanwhile, as we posted below, judges are under attack. Leading Republicans and their top allies have condoned violence against the Judiciary... now THAT is harsh language most would consider very serious. And what's the GOP response. Pretty much nothing.

The GOP will hardly criticize each other over really vital life and death issues. Democrats leap to eat their own every chance they get. It's easier. And, if you're John Edwards or Joe Biden, criticizing Dean keeps your face on the TV.

Here's an idea for Democrats. Stick together for a change. It's what the Republicans do... and they control the White House, the Senate and the House. You might be better off standing up to the right wing and even the media, instead of beating the crap out of your own party chair.

BTW, while prospective candidates Biden and Edwards are beating up on him, Dean is out organizing in Montana and Missouri this weekend.... trying to turn red states blue, rather than trying to turn other Democrats black and blue. Read the rest of this post...

Bush [hearts] dictators

Disgusting what Bush did, or didn't do, in the face of the dictator Karimov crushing the revolt last week. This is a dictator that Bush has coddled for far too long. Bush's words, and word, means nothing. Spread democracy and freedom, my ass. He's made a mockery of everything our country stands for. (Meant to post this a few weeks ago, but still relevant.)

More from the Washington Post and Democracy Guy. Read the rest of this post...

Very Lame Ducks?

The debacle over Iraq -- misleading the public, using fear to keep a populace in check, using terror alerts for political purposes when no threat was in sight -- seemed to have no effect. Bush and Blair and other major political figures were returned to office.

But now their power seems to be crumbling before our eyes. Right after Blair's party was reelected (in a historic third term that was also at historically low levels), many were calling for his head. Step down, they said. Blair caved in to reality, but managed to convince everyone he should stay on till the UK voted on the EU constitution in mid 2006. Now that the referendum is dead, his own party members are braying again for Blair to step down. What exactly is he waiting for, they ask? Expect him gone by the end of the year.

As for Bush, his every major initiative -- dismantling Social Security, dumbing down science and research into battling disease, pushing through radical judges who can't gain reasonable support from moderates in both parties, not to mention "stabilizing" Iraq and Afghanistan -- has been an utter disaster. Now he's holding press conferences insisting that he is NOT a lame duck, as sure a sign of lame-duckiness as there is.

So are Bush and Blair ones for the history books or do they still have some fight left in 'em? Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

Summer is here. 88 degrees. Ugh. Read the rest of this post...

Russert presses Ken "I'm 38 and unmarried" Mehlman on gay issues

Call me crazy, but it sounds like Meet the Press's Tim Russert was pushing Ken on purpose. Hmmm...

MR. RUSSERT: Will the president continue to push for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage?

MR. MEHLMAN: The president strongly believes that marriage in this country ought to be between a man and a woman. He also believes it is something that ought to be decided by the people. He doesn't believe that judges ought to impose their will on the people. And because there have been a number of judicial decisions, most recently in Nebraska, that have made that decision for the people. He believes that a constitutional amendment is appropriate so the people can weigh in.
It's something that's before the United States Senate. It's one of their agenda items they intend to move on this year, and I think we can expect to see them do that.

MR. RUSSERT: You've been trying to broaden the base of the Republican Party and yet Log Cabin Republicans, gay Republicans, issued this statement in the course of last year's election: "...it is impossible to overstate the depth of anger and disappointment caused by the President's support for an anti-family Constitutional Amendment. This amendment would not only ban gay marriage, it would also jeopardize civil unions and domestic partnerships. ... Some will accuse us of being disloyal. However, it was actually the White House who was disloyal to the 1,000,000 gay and lesbian Americans who supported him four years ago in 2000. Log Cabin's decision was made in response to the White House's strategic political decision to pursue a re-election strategy catered to the radical right. ... Using gays and lesbians as wedge issues in an election year is unacceptable to Log Cabin..."

MR. MEHLMAN: I would respectfully disagree with their statement on that. I think this is an issue in which there's some disagreement. The fact is if you look at the exit polls about 23 percent of gays and lesbians voted for this president, so lot of folks disagreed with what the Log Cabin Republicans said. I'm glad they're supporting the president's position on Social Security. But I think that fundamentally for the president and for millions of Americans, this is an issue of principle. Who should decide on a critical question of how we define marriage in this country? Should it be decided by an activist court or by the people? We believe the people should make this decision.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?

MR. MEHLMAN: I don't know the answer to that question. I don't think it matters to the fundamental question here because at bottom, this president believes in non-discrimination. He believes in equal treatment. He believes in respect for all. He also believes, separate and apart from that question, that the fundamental question of marriage ought to be defined in the way it's been defined for more than 200 years of our nation's history, which is by the people's representative at the state legislatures.

MR. RUSSERT: But the Log Cabin Republicans will say if you're born gay, it's a biological determination, not a matter of choice.

MR. MEHLMAN: And that's--that may be, but the fact is that's irrelevant to question of the public definition of marriage. They're two totally different issues.

And call me crazy again, but I hear a lot of hedging here, almost as if Ken were incapable of giving a straight answer, as it were. "The president thinks" and "the president believes." Why are you afraid to say what YOU think, Ken? The head of the entire Republican party doesn't have an opinion on homosexuality and gay rights issues? And why is it that you still refuse to say publicly if you're a heterosexual, Ken? If you're really a straight guy, that's messed up. And if you're gay, you're no better than collaborator Spokane Mayor West.

Crooks and Liars has the video. Read the rest of this post...

Ohio Coin-gate and the GOP candidates for Governor

I really do love reading the Toledo Blade every day. Today, the paper has FOUR, yes FOUR, major political stories examining the role "Coin-gate" will play in next year's race for Governor. Of course, as we learned in 2004, Ohio politics affect national politics. The GOP players involved in Coin-gate, like Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, had major roles in the Bush/Cheney campaign. So, this is a long post, but political junkies, there's a lot of good stuff.

The Overview
"Noe fallout taints early candidates to succeed Taft; Democrats take aim at GOP trio"

The main article gives the overview of the scandal and how the GOP leaders are involved:

Tom Noe has outraged and angered the governor of Ohio, caused the President to return his campaign contributions, and his $50 million state-coin funds are in disarray.

But the Maumee coin dealer's biggest political victims might be Attorney General Jim Petro, Auditor Betty Montgomery, and Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell - who are competing to become Ohio's next governor.

The three Republican officeholders running for governor have all received campaign cash from Mr. Noe and have been criticized for their slow reaction to the growing coin scandal.

Now they find themselves on the defensive, quickly distancing themselves from the prominent Republican campaign fund-raiser, who is facing multiple investigations, including a probe into whether Mr. Noe violated campaign-finance laws by laundering money into the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign. All of the candidates say they have known Mr. Noe for years and they returned thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from him and his wife, Bernadette, last week.

That piece alone was a good read...but it gets better. In separate articles, The Blade examines each of the three GOP candidates for Governor (Blackwell, Montgomery and Petro) and their relationship to Noe and the scandal.

Secretary of State Ken Blackwell
Blackwell had few concerns at first:

In fact, Mr. Blackwell told The Blade on April 5 that "most people" wouldn't find it "unreasonable" that the state had invested in rare coins with Tom Noe, who has said through his attorneys that at least $10 million of the state's assets are missing.

"When you run a fund the size of $18 billion and you're looking at $50 million, beyond what one's disposition might be, is that an irresponsible amount of risk? Most people would say no," Mr. Blackwell said on April 5 - two days after The Blade's initial report on the coin investment.

State Auditor Betty Montgomery
Montgomery insists she didn't delay action on audit:

it took 43 days after The Blade's first story for Ms. Montgomery to announce that her office would do a special audit of the rare-coin investment.

Democrats have charged that Ms. Montgomery, a former Wood County prosecutor and state senator, didn't act sooner because she has known Mr. Noe for several years and has received thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from him and his wife, Bernadette. She relinquished $8,150 in contributions last week.

Attorney General Jim Petro
Petro saw no 'sense of illegality' at first in coin scandal:

Attorney General Jim Petro waited more than a month to begin taking legal action after learning that two state-owned coins worth $300,000 were reportedly stolen from the suburban Denver office of Tom Noe's rare-coin venture with the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation.

But Mr. Petro, who first read about the bureau's $50 million investment with Mr. Noe in The Blade on April 3, is adamant he took appropriate measures to protect the bureau's assets as soon as there were questions of wrongdoing.

"The first story simply said he was an influential guy in the Republican Party and he had a contract with BWC," Mr. Petro told The Blade last week. "I might have looked at it that it's not the world's greatest investment from my perspective, but that's not a cause of action."

A "breach" of contract, "possible misappropriation," or "misdeed" - would be necessary to begin legal proceedings, but there "was not any sense of illegality at that point," he said.

What a great way to spend a Sunday...reading about squirming, nasty Ohio Republicans wrapped up in the biggest scandal to hit that state in decades. And, they are all involved. Read the rest of this post...

Dying wishes? Not so important to Vatican

Pope John Paul II asked in his will that his personal papers be burned. Vatican officials have other plans. Typical. I guess violating a will doesn't mean anything when you've got a history of enabling pedophiles.

Oh, and they're rushing the process for turning JPII into a saint. I mean, what's a few pesky little rules when you're creating a saint - it's not like it's any big deal if you get it wrong. Read the rest of this post...

Not safe to be a judge in America anymore

UPDATE: You read about "conservative Christian" and GOP anti-judge hate speech and the risk to judges' lives on AMERICAblog first: here and here and here and here and here and here. And this was our first story back in early March. At some point, will the mainstream advocacy groups jump on this issue, please?

This is what the judge bashing and threats have engendered:

The number of reported threats against judges has been increasing. So have verbal and physical attacks against judges and other court officials, in courthouses and elsewhere. A judge in Atlanta was gunned down in his courtroom. In Florida, the state court judge in the Terri Schiavo right-to-die case had to be put under protective guard. In Chicago, the husband and mother of a federal judge were gunned down by a man who had broken into the judge's home to kill her.

"The madness in the shadows of modern life," is how that judge, Joan H. Lefkow, described these times in a recent congressional hearing about judicial safety.

The Washington Post reports on the dangers of being a judge in a piece titled, "Judges Are Seeking Cover on The Bench: Safety Is Top Concern After Recent Attacks." Think about that for a second. A whole branch of government is under threat.

Mission accomplished for Frist, DeLay, Cornyn and all their theocratic cronies. Their language of hate and violence towards judges has found a receptive audience.

Nice work. Read the rest of this post...

Open Thread

What's going on? Read the rest of this post...

More Abu Ghraib abuse photos coming

A judge has cleared the way for 144 more photos and videos showing abuse of prisoners. I'll bet the White House is pretty happy that they piled on Newsweek a few weeks ago, huh? Brillant job over there masterminding this process and it looks like the arrogance of the Bush team is starting to catch up with them.

"These images may be ugly and shocking, but they depict how the torture was more than the actions of a few rogue soldiers," said ACLU director Anthony Romero. "The American public deserves to know what is being done in our name. Perhaps after these and other photos are forced into the light of day, the government will at long last appoint an outside special counsel to investigate the torture and abuse of detainees."

Read the rest of this post...