GOP presidential debate audience boos US soldier serving in Iraq because he’s gay

If a Democratic debate audience had done this, it would be the only thing we heard about for the next 14 months. They just booed a US soldier serving in combat. Think about that. This is what the Republican party has become. A bunch of far-right bigots and extremists. The Tea Party and the evangelical nuts run the entire thing now.

And watch Rick Santorum not say a peep when these right-wing freaks are booing a US soldier serving in combat.

Read the rest of this post...

GOP presidential debate open thread

The GOP presidential candidates are debating on FOX tonight at 9pm.  Feel free to discuss the debate, or anything else, in the comments.

The boys over at AMERICAblog Elections: The Right's Field - our site covering the GOP candidates for president in 2012 - is live-tweeting the GOP debate. You can follow them here. Read the rest of this post...

China and Russia propose 'best practices' to censor the Internet

To understand the proposal being made to the UN by four countries led by Russia and China, you have to understand how they define their terms. In their vocabulary 'information terrorism' means free speech.

The Internet is not the only information infrastructure that has become a critical infrastructure. It is hardly surprising then that governments are looking to control it. In some cases the control issues are entirely reasonable.

A few years ago the government of France moved to block some US led RFID proposals which would have effectively granted a US owned company the ability to impose a global trade embargo on French companies by denying them assignment of necessary product codes.

China and Russia have been in partnership for quite some time and were pushing to block the use of the Internet for Arab spring like protests long before the Iranian election protests that proceeded the Arab spring. Much of the language in the UN resolution appeared in an earlier Shanghai Cooperation Organization treaty signed by China and Russia. It looks like this draft was written by the Chinese side as calling for a new governance body to replace ICANN is one of their recurring talking points. A sample:

Each State voluntarily subscribing to the code pledges:

(b) Not to use information and communications technologies, including networks, to carry out hostile activities or acts of aggression, pose threats to international peace and security or proliferate information weapons or related technologies;

Posing threats to the security of dictatorships is what some of us designed the Web for in the first place. The lack of central control is not an accident of its design.

We are already starting to see states attacking their citizens through attacks on the Internet infrastructure. In the coming years those attacks will escalate and it is likely that we will see Russia, China and other states attempting to opt-out of parts of the Internet control and security mechanisms and introducing alternatives under their direct control.

Unlike the Cold War which was primarily a contest between the US and the Soviet Union, the Cyber War is a struggle between totalitarian governments and their own people. Read the rest of this post...

Obama takes on Boehner, McConnell in rather feisty language

The President's remarks in Cincinnati earlier today were darn good. This extended excerpt in particular. Now, I know... we need more than just speeches - been there, done that. But I think we've proven our bona fides in terms of our willingness to challenge the President when we disagree with him.  And on this speech, we don't disagree with him.  This is the guy I voted for.

So my question to Congress is, what on Earth are you waiting for?

Now, the bridge behind us just so happens to connect the state that’s home to the Speaker of the House with the state that’s home to the Minority Leader of the Senate. Sheer coincidence, of course. But part of the reason I came here is because Mr. Boehner and Mr. McConnell are the two most powerful Republicans in government. They can either kill this jobs bill, or they can help us pass it.

I know these men care about their states. And I can’t imagine that the Speaker wants to represent a state where nearly one in four bridges is classified as substandard. I know that when Senator McConnell visited the closed bridge in Kentucky, he said that “roads and bridges are not partisan in Washington.” I know that Paul Ryan, the Republican in charge of the budget process, recently said you can’t deny that “infrastructure does create jobs.”

Well if that’s the case, then there’s no reason for Republicans in Congress to stand in the way of more construction projects. There’s no reason to stand in the way of more jobs. Mr. Boehner, Mr. McConnell, help us rebuild this bridge. Help us rebuild America. Help us put this country back to work. Pass this jobs bill right away.

[...]

It is time to build an economy that creates good, middle-class jobs in this country. It’s time to build an economy that honors the values of hard work and responsibility. It’s time to build an economy that lasts.

Cincinnati, that starts now. That starts with your help. Maybe some of the people in Congress would rather settle our differences at the ballot box than work together right now. Awhile back, Senator McConnell said that his top priority for the next two years is to defeat the President. Not jobs. Not the economy. Just politics – from now until the election.

Well I’ve got news for him, and every other Member of Congress who feels that way: the next election is 14 months away. And the American people don’t have the luxury of waiting that long. A lot of folks are living week to week; paycheck to paycheck; even day to day. They need action, and they need it now.

Read the rest of this post...

Hustler’s Larry Flynt reportedly will offer $1m for proof that Rick Perry had gay (or straight) affair

This should get interesting, as there's been talk for years about Rick Perry's sexual orientation. Read the rest of this post...

More Americans blame Bush than Obama for economy, but Obama blame is growing

But, the number of Americans blaming Obama is increasing. Still, considering how little the President (if ever) mentions George Bush, or even the previous administration generally, it's interesting that that many people still blame Bush (69%) versus Obama (53%). But it's not all wine and roses. That 53% for Obama is the highest number Gallup has had for that question since Obama took office. Also, 60% of independents say Obama bears the blame, and according to Gallup, that's a 32 point increase since the question was first posed in the middle of 2009. Read the rest of this post...

Boehner reportedly reaching breaking point with Teabaggers

Grab some popcorn. From National Journal:

In private, Boehner has grown tired of what he dismissively calls the "know it alls who have all the right answers." Boehner knew what a defeat would mean - a more costly spending bill - one that provides more emergency disaster relief and contains fewer budget offsets.

As one top leadership aide said: "Boehner is more than willing to accept a short-term defeat to achieve a longer-term goal." What's the longer term goal? It appears to be showing Republicans who oppose leadership that divisions not only create low-level political chaos and bad media coverage, their undermine GOP policy goals by increasing the leverage of the Democratic minority.

To that end, House leadership aides said leaders were leaning towards moving a clean CR with Democratic votes in order to get in through the Senate and allow Congress to recess in time for its scheduled break next week.

It's hard to know how much of this is real and how much is Boehner misinformation. Still, it does seem awfully fun. Read the rest of this post...

Photo of Rick Perry without his hand on his heart could cause problems

In our world, this is silly.  In their world, it's as bad as believing in the climate change.  And let's not forget, they had no problem doing this to Obama. Read the rest of this post...

Arianna on what Obama needs to do

Arianna Huffington:

And yes, I'm well aware of the structural impediments (aka the Republican Party) facing the president. But, given that they're not going anywhere, and show no signs of moderating their intransigence, it's even more important that we hear what changes he plans to make in his approach to governing.

His new jobs plan is a good case in point. Solid plan; great speech -- one he followed up by immediately taking his case to that "committed grassroots army." First, he went to Eric Cantor's district and proclaimed, "the time for action is now. The time to create jobs is now." Then he went to John Boehner's state and said, "my question to Congress is, what on earth are we waiting for?" This was followed by his call for a new minimum tax rate for millionaires.

It was an effective bit of political salesmanship -- and a refreshing shift in strategy. But the president's problem going forward is explaining the shift: If you've been taking one approach and then you abruptly change without acknowledging why, or even that you did, or what lessons were learned that caused you to make the change, it just doesn't ring true.

Of course, acknowledging mistakes and course-correcting are the hardest things for a leader to do. But in order for voters to believe that things will be different in the president's second term, there has to be some recognition of what didn't work in the first. Otherwise, any future talk of change will be like hearing a song without the music. And the more often words of change are used without real change happening, the more devalued they will become.

I'm posting this because this is exactly what I've been telling people the past few days. I want to believe that the President's shift towards being a fighter and not a lover is real. And he's made some good moves and should be lauded for it. But I'm not sure whether it's entirely real because it doesn't quite make sense. What changed? How do you one day wake up and become a different person? I think it's possible to change, but I think it usually takes some kind of personal epiphany, brought on by seriously bad circumstances, and I guess I'd like to know more about what that epiphany was, in order to believe that it's real. That's why Arianna's words above hit a chord for me. Read the rest of this post...

Video: The Texas Miracle, it’s all that and less (From Second City)

Read the rest of this post...

Clemons: Obama stance on Palestine’s UN application "has assured the rise of Hamas and the legitimation of violence"

Because this issue may be off the radar for many in the U.S., a little background first.

Earlier this month, in an attempt to break the stalemate with Israel over Palestinian statehood, the PLO decided unilaterally to seek recognition from the U.N. Al-Jazeera (I did some re-paragraphing and added emphasis):

The Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) will go to the United Nations Security Council and seek full membership in the world body next week, despite the looming threat of a US veto, a Palestinian official said.

The announcement was made by Mohammed Shtayyeh, a senior member of Fatah's central committee, at a news conference in Ramallah on Tuesday. Fatah is the largest Palestinian faction in the PLO. His announcement would seem to end months of speculation about the PLO's diplomatic strategy.

"We are going to the United Nations, we are going to the Security Council," Shtayyeh said. "We are going to seek full membership based on 1967 borders." ... Full recognition would allow Palestine to vote at the UN, and to join the International Criminal Court and other world bodies.

Nice — in the U.S. that's called an "end-around," a term from American football.

Read the full Al-Jazeera article for the implications of that move; it's well explained. If you do, note that Hamas, the most militant of the major Palestinian groups, is opposed to the application. Steve Clemons comments on that aspect below.

Al-Jazeera noted at the time that the "PLO will have little trouble securing the required two-thirds majority at the General Assembly". The problem is at the Security Council, where the U.S. has a veto and earlier said it would use it.

Now comes President Obama. On Sept 21, the president stated his opposition to the Palestinian application. SF Chronicle (my emphasis):

U.S. President Barack Obama underlined yesterday (Sept 21) that his position had not budged when he told the gathering of world leaders that "peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the UN." There was little in his words to encourage Palestinians or sway Abbas to change course.

"It didn't really take us forward to anywhere," said Shtayyeh in a telephone interview. "The negotiations themselves are in a crisis. We took this initiative to change the status quo."

Another option open to the Palestinians would be to pursue an upgraded status at the General Assembly, from "entity" to "non-member state," such as the Holy See, the government of the Roman Catholic Church, based in the Vatican. That could enable them to sign international treaties and have cases heard in the International Criminal Court.

Which leaves things as they are. In football terms, Obama stuffed the play for no gain.

Which brings us to Steve Clemons, Washington editor-at-large for The Atlantic. His headline:

Obama Tells Palestinians to Stay in Back of the Bus

Here's the gist of his thinking (again my emphasis):

President Obama, who in earlier years at the UN chastised Mahmoud Abbas, Benjamin Netanyahu, and George Mitchell for not getting more quickly on a constructive peace track, who felt that achieving an Israel-Palestine two state deal was of such strategic significance to the United States that he made it one of the very first out-of-the gate priorities of his administration, has not only offered nothing new to break the Israel-Palestine negotiations deep freeze but has acquiesced to the very narrative that on the negotiations that Israel embraces. For Israel at the moment, doing nothing is best.

Obama continues to parrot the line that peace can only be achieved between the "two parties", that only they can really bring this global ulcer to a close, when they decide to negotiate. The fact is that the status quo of frozen negotiations is benefiting the dominant, settlement-expanding Israel -- and the US, in promising to veto at the UN Security Council Palestine's bid for official state recognition, is playing guarantor to one side, undermining the aspirations of others on the other side of the equation. What if the US had said to Kosovo -- no statehood, no recognition from the US until you resolve all of your ongoing issues with Russia?

Obama's position on this is dangerous in another sense as well. Obama -- who looked to so many early in his rock star style rise to the Presidency as a leader on the level of a Gandhi, or Martin Luther King, or Mandela -- has assured the rise of Hamas, the legitimation of violence in pursuit of Palestinian political goals, by yet again showing that peaceful, non-violent moderates like Mahmoud Abbas ultimately get nothing -- even if they play the role of the "good Palestinian," the one who listens to his masters, who doesn't get too disturbed when humiliated at Israel's border check points and at UN Security Council meetings.

The choice is clear. It's not about supporting Israel vs. Palestine. It's about supporting Israel and Hamas vs. the PLO and Fatah. As Steve Clemons notes, Obama has, in effect, chosen to support Hamas (that's the feisty brother) over the PLO (the one who wants to make peace).

That will have consequences, and not in a good way. Here's a look at those 1967 borders, by the way — third from the left. At the far left is what they started with. At the far right is the situation today.

There's a good side, however. The decision in the U.N. is not made, it's just (endlessly) delayed. The Chronicle again:

The U.S. and Israel have leaned on council members favoring the statehood initiative to abstain from voting, leaving the Palestinians fighting to retain support. Allowing the UN's administrative process to delay the consideration in the 15- member body [the Security Council] will permit the Palestinians to save face and buy diplomats time to look for an alternative that restarts peace talks.

Let's hope Mr. Obama and his team recalculates their choices in time to make a better one. (And let's hope electoral politics doesn't have a place in this.)

The PLO and the U.N. may not have a deadline, but I'll bet Hamas does.

GP Read the rest of this post...

White House threatens veto of House anti-enviro bill

That's good.  Though I'd be curious what chance this legislation had of passing in the Senate.  In any case, this is the kind of thing we expect from a Democratic president, so two points for the White House.  From the Hill:

The House is slated to vote later this week on a GOP-led measure that would mandate new interagency analyses of the cumulative economic effects of several EPA rules.

The bill would delay completion of upcoming mercury standards for power plants until at least six months after the interagency panel’s final report in August of 2012.

It would also delay a recently finalized EPA rule to cut power plant emissions that blow across state lines and worsen smog and particulate pollution, a measure called the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule.

Read the rest of this post...

Poll: More Texans disapprove than approve of Perry

Maybe they don't know how impressive his economic miracle really has been. You know, the miracle that has set recent record highs for poverty and unemployment. Oh my.

Rick Perry has an under water approval rating in Texas and he's leading Barack Obama by a smaller margin than John McCain won the state by in 2008...but at least he is leading Obama, which is more than he could say the last time we polled the state.

45% of Texas voters approve of the job Perry is doing to 48% who disapprove. Those aren't good numbers but they do represent improvement from a June PPP poll of the state when Perry was at 43/52. The better numbers are attributable to Republicans really rallying around him. He was at 73/21 with them before but now it's 78/14. He continues to be very unpopular with independents though (32/61) and even in a state that still has a lot of conservative Democrats his crossover support is virtually nonexistent with just 13% of voters approving of him across party lines. The numbers with independents are particularly troublesome for Perry- if that's where he is with swing voters where they know him best, can he expect to do well with those folks in key swing states like Ohio, Colorado, and Virginia?

Read the rest of this post...

Holiday shopping season expected to decline

It's difficult to spend money when you're not sure about your job. With the over-emphasis on budget cutting rather than jobs creation, this is going to be the new normal. Stupidity is certain in style these days in Washington.

A new forecast indicates that sales will likely not be as high as last year and that shoppers won't be hitting the stores as much.

Retail sales for the November and December period are expected to rise 3 percent during what is traditionally the most critical period of the year for retailers, according to the research firm ShopperTrak.

That would be below last year's 4.1 percent sales rise.

Read the rest of this post...