Watching the cable pundits last night wrangle with the majority of Americans disapproving of how Obama is handling health care reform, I was struck by their automatic assumption that all 52% of those who disapprove are against reform. Where did they get that idea?

If asked if I approved or disapproved of how he was handling health care reform, I would be in the disapprove category because think he is weakening reform by trying to get GOP support that won't come. I disapprove of him bowing to the Blue Dogs and letting the least Democratic Democrats run the show. I disapprove of him not pushing the Senate to act before the recess, thereby opening up more opportunities to weaken the bill. I think he's going for too little, too diffidently and compromising too much.

So I disapprove - because I want better strong health care reform and I am wiling to bet that since 72% of Americans want the public option and see it being frittered away by over-conciliatory compromise, that it's damn likely that more of those 52% who disapprove of how Obama is handling health care reform do so because they think he's dithering and wasting the opportunity for a stronger, better plan than are those who want little or nothing.

In fact, those who want some tinkering around the edges reform should be the ones who approve his handling, because as it goes right now - that's where we are headed.

Those who oppose investigating and possibly prosecuting those responsible for creating a bureaucratic cover for illegal torture have claimed that it would be a criminalization of policy difference and politicize justice. They are wrong. Failure to prosecute for fear of political fallout is politicized justice.

What they are accused of is illegal. It was illegal when they did it. They did not change a policy, they broke laws. When political elites argue that they are above the law, that is politicized justice. When  we are asked to move on past this ugly spectacle, that is politicized justice.

But then. I have to stop and consider the immensity of gall and hypocrisy it takes for any Republican to complain about politicized justice. The party who hired and fired US Attorneys based on loyalty to the GOP and their willingness to bring specious cases against Democrats, including cases that judges have said are crazy. The party of Ken Starr - the walking personification of politicized justice - really should not talk about politicizing Justice. There are literally cases of documents detailing how they made their entire Administration, including the Justice Department, a cog in their reelection machine.

It is beyond shameful that reporters are not laughing in their faces.

Leona Helmsly infamously said "Only the little people pay taxes." Presumably she regretted that. However, as outrage piles on outrage - when companies who owe back taxes get bailout money, when bonuses are paid to incompetents who orchestrated bankruptcies so massive they take down more than their own companies, when bonus incentives to executives are sacred and honored by the same government that pressured automakers to break union contracts, when  fucking AIG is suing the government and owes back taxes, I resent every penny I am being asked to pay.

I have longed for a government that would use my taxes for things I believe in - for education, health care and the environment. I hated paying taxes for the wars and the enrichment of Cheney's buddies. But now I am paying taxes to enrich Geithner's friends? To pay bonuses to people who in a sane world would be under indictment?  Those bonuses are not to save the economy and if union contracts can be abrogated even though union workers did not sabotage and destroy their companies, well these contracts could be lit of fire and shoved down Cassano's throat. Just an idea. 

How many times have I read that the IRS is more aggressive in forcing compliance on low-income and middle income taxpayers, that the wealthy routinely evade their tax obligation. We see folks not paying taxes and then negotiating deals to only pay a portion of what they owe - if they owe enough, not if they are poor or middle income.

We definitely have a government with two sets of rules for the weathly and for the rest of us. I know some people who refuse to vote to show they withhold their consent - that's not effective. But what if we withhold our taxes? That would have an effect.

Of course, that's not right - the government needs money for health care, education, and other priorities ....but what if everyone sent a note that said "This is the last unless there is accountability and we restore the rule of law."

I don't want to waste Hillary on the SoS position. I want her in the Senate for the next 30 years...

Yes, she could do it and do it well, but so could lots of other people. Few have shown such aptitude for the Senate as she has demonstrated. Stay in the Senate, Hil, and take it over!!

So, the CEO of Home Depot thinks any retailer not throwing money to influence the outcomes in fovor of the GOP in MN and GA should be shot. First, in a fair recount, it would not matter how much money they threw at the issue, the result would be a win for the candidate with the most votes...so is he urging retailers to get into the act of bribing judges, or does he want to hire a fake rabble to riot in a repeat of the Brooks Brothers riot in Miami. If so, he will find that Minnesotans are made of sterner stuff than those cowards in Miami.  Secondly, so, disagreeing with this cretin's political views should be punishable by death? Did he never read the US Constitution?

While he has the right to his opinion, I also think he needs some schooling in American democracy and the power of the people - not just the CEO's. Perhaps a demonstration of people power and the power of the pocketbook combined would help. Perhaps it would be useful for people to boycott Home Depot until he is fired. That seems like good karma. Woudl folks be interested?

I believe you can best judge a party's own assessment of their candidates and platforms by their strategies to win elections - especially their unethical strategies. Democrats believe their platform and their candidates are the best for the most people and carry out that belief through massive voter registration drives and encouraging everyone - even sometimes those not permitted - to vote. Their strategies reflect their honest assessment that the more people who vote, the more likely they are to win because they are the best party for the most people.

Republicans pursue strategies to limit voter participation and suppress even legal voting. They place obstacles in the way of voting such as voter id requirements and through challenging voters' right to vote based on spurious assumptions that if their home is in foreclosure they can be living there. The post flyers threatening prosecution for voting, claiming police will be serving warrants, and so on. They send out notices with false precinct addresses. They have a new one, though, in Florida that has gotten even Republican elections officials pissed off.

They are sending letters to registered Democrats to check and averify their registration claiming they are registered as Republicans. I kid you not. See the store here.

Yes, it helps them win elections and confirms for the record that even in their own minds they believe their platform and candidates can not win an open, honest and fair election.

The Republicans always love to talk about cultural abasement in terms of the poor and most particularly in terms of African Americans. They trot out Moynihan's phrase "defining deviency down" and complain about single mothers, absent fathers and rap music.

However, I submit that the most successful effort to define deviency down has come from the Republican party itself. From Nixon to Reagan to Bush to McCain, we have had a string of administrations and campaigns marked by corruption, secrecy and lies. And the result is that McCain's campaign staff arrogantly and flippantly boasts that they don't care that the media calls them on their lies.

Yes, they know they are lying in the ads. They know that using words like disrespectful and arrogant to talk about Obama is code talk to white folks to tell them to shut down the "uppity" black man. They don't care though, because they have so successfully lowered expectations of integrity and honesty among Republicans, it's not a story when they are corrrupt, lying conmen.

Corrupt Republican? Yawn!  Been there, done that.

And so they get away with it - there's no outrage because they have exhausted and outlasted outrage.

So, Chris Matthews, James Carville and other pundits refuse to believe their lying eyes when they see the loathsome, racist personal attacks coming out of the McCain campaign. The exculpate McCain of any complicity in the ads - insisting he cannot know they are happening.  Fine! Let's go there.

If John McCain is so incompetent he doesn't even have control over his campaign's message and advertising, he is too incompetent to be in the Senate, let alone in the White House.

So, go ahead and say he's too good a guy to do that. Pretend that McCain would not do or say anything to get power. Make all those justifications because you can't have it both ways. If he's innocent of those ads, he's an incompetent manager who has no business in the presidency. If he's aware of those ads, he's vile, racist and corrupt and should not be withing 30 miles of the White House. Either way, those ads disqualify him from the White House.

Josh says Palin reminds him of someone - it's on the tip of his tongue. In an effort to help him out, I suggest the person he is thinking of is Louise Fletcher

Josh says Palin reminds him of someone - it's on the tip of his tongue. In an effort to help him out, I suggest the person he is thinking of is this one: http://www.collegefootballresource.com/storage/louisefletcher.jpg

Having listened to the Norm Coleman ad going after Franken for "juicy porn" , I have to wonder how well it would work.  
Minnesotans are a bit touchy about having their accent mocked - and particularly when it's done poorly.  You have no idea how many people were pissed off by Fargo and refused to even see it. 
Coming from Minnesota, I am familiar with the accents of the different regions from the North Woods where I am from to the Range to the Cities and nowhere have I heard that accent anywhere in the state. The person speaking sounds like an ignorant buffoon. 
I think this is a case of a New Yorker (Coleman) not getting Minnesota and perhaps looking down on the state as provincial and backwards. I cannot see it being effective with anyone who is not already disposed to vote Republican.

There's no need for Obama nor anyone else to vote on the FISA bill now, it's unnecessary thanks to a Bush-appointed Appeals Court judge.

Judge Reject Bush's View on Wiretaps

Highlights from the article:

A federal judge in California said Wednesday that the wiretapping law established by Congress was the “exclusive” means for the president to eavesdrop on Americans, and he rejected the government’s claim that the president’s constitutional authority as commander in chief trumped that law.

He said the rules for surveillance were clearly established by Congress in 1978 under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires the government to get a warrant from a secret court. “Congress appears clearly to have intended to — and did — establish the exclusive means for foreign intelligence activities to be conducted,” the judge wrote.

 “Whatever power the executive may otherwise have had in this regard, FISA limits the power of the executive branch to conduct such activities and it limits the executive branch’s authority to assert the state secrets privilege in response to challenges to the legality of its foreign intelligence surveillance activities

Like many Democrats, I get sick and tired of the false presumption that Republicans are better for the military, more patriotic and just generally more all-American than Democrats. It's as false as the myth of the morality and steadfast wholesomeness of the Heartland - a myth belied by objective statistic on divorce, teen pregnancy, drug addiction and violent crime statistics.

It seems that no outrage pierces the prejudices of the media. That our soldiers showered in contaminated water because of Bush cronyism does not do it. The shameful treatment of soldiers returning from Iraq doesn't do it. The Walter Reed scandal doesn't do it. The Republican opposition to the new GI Bill does not do it. The media are conditioned to see Republicans as pro-military and nothing seems to change their mind.

But what if they were trying to keep our veterans from voting?  The Bush Administration has blocked voter registration efforts at VA nursing homes, rehab centers and the like. Sure shows how hypocritical their concern for military ballots in Florida was when they want to prevent vets from even registering to vote.

Two real heroes have taken this fight straight to the VA, Connecticut Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz and Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, both Democrats have protested loudly and publicly. The Secretary of State herself went to do voter registration and was turned away.

For more information, you can read this article:
http://tinyurl.com/4maytw

Yes, Obama is wrong to vote for the FISA bill. No, that should not result is people refusing to vote for him as he is no Tweedledee to McCain's Tweedledum just as Gore was not a mirror of Bush. Thanks, Ralph!
However, I am disheartened by those who seem perfectly willing to give up our 4th Amendment rights because they trust Obama won't abuse the power and they believe he will win. First, he might not win. Second, what about in 2009 or 2013 or whenever the GOP comes back into power.  
The GOP was all for limiting the president's power while Clinton was in office and then threw their libertarianism under the bus under Bush. Are we equally unprincipled? Do we think unconstitutional powers are okay for us? 
The Achilles Heel of our constitution and the balance of power that has served us so well is that it requires that we place our trust in the system of government, not the individual. The reason we have gone so far astray is the direct result of the personality cult the Right built around Bush. Let's not do the same around Obama...because even if he does not abuse those powers, they will exist and be passed on to those who may not deserve our trust.

McCain has asked for a series of town hall debates with Obama. I personally like the Town Hall debate style so long as CNN doesn't plant questioners with trivial and demeaning questions they wrote.
However, Obama is a good debater both in town hall situations and in formal moderated debates. Yes, he had one bad debate, but that was the ABC moderators' obsession with trivia, not his performance itself. The thing is, McCain is only good in the town hall format. 
Clearly, Obama should insist on several forms of debate, not just the one that shows McCain in his best light. McCain, however despicable his policies, is someone that people find likable and engaging. He connects with people on a personal level in some way. In town halls, he seems frank and honest. In more formal conditions, he is ill at ease and seems at best, inauthentic. More importantly, he seems dishonest. 
Obama has no need to avoid town hall debates. He does well in them. Just don't let McCain shine at every debate by allowing them to be in the only format he can shine in.