Jack & Jill Politics

01 Nov 2009 07:40 pm
In Front Of Our Noses

A now familiar but still remarkable fact about 21st Century America:

Obama's favorability-unfavorability rating in the South is 28-67, while it is 68-23 in the rest of the country.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily...

and carville and greenberg say that racism isn't the cause of opposition to Obama. Yeah, right.

AFTERNOON OPEN THREAD IS UP

Well Dede did it ya'll. It's getting ready to get funky in NY23.
Link:
http://www.pressrepublican.com/0100_news/local_...
Scozzafava endorses Owens

Republican candidate for the 23rd Congressional District Dede Scozzafava, who quit the race Saturday, today announced she is backing Democrat William Owens. Here is her statement:


Statement from Dede Scozzafava:


I want to thank you for your support and friendship. Over the past 24 hours, I have had encouraging words sent to my family and me. Many of you have asked me whom you should support on Tuesday.
Since announcing the suspension of my campaign, I have thought long and hard about what is best for the people of this District, and how to answer your questions. This is not a decision that I have made lightly.
You know me, and throughout my career, I have been always been an independent voice for the people I represent. I have stood for our honest principles, and a truthful discussion of the issues, even when it cost me personally and politically. Since beginning my campaign, I have told you that this election is not about me; it’s about the people of this District.
It is in this spirit that I am writing to let you know I am supporting Bill Owens for Congress and urge you to do the same.
It’s not in the cards for me to be your representative, but I strongly believe Bill is the only candidate who can build upon John McHugh's lasting legacy in the U.S. Congress. John and I worked together on the expansion of Fort Drum and I know how important that base is to the economy of this region. I am confident that Bill will be able to provide the leadership and continuity of support to Drum Country just as John did during his tenure in Congress.
In Bill Owens, I see a sense of duty and integrity that will guide him beyond political partisanship. He will be an independent voice devoted to doing what is right for New York. Bill understands this district and its people, and when he represents us in Congress he will put our interests first.
Please join me in voting for Bill Owens on Tuesday. To address the tough challenges ahead, we must rise above partisanship and politics and work together. There's too much at stake in this election to do otherwise.


Dede

Where do we send the gasoline? they goin to burn the house down.

New From AOFBlog: Do That Many People Care About The Obama Marriage? http://bit.ly/16sawS

Did anyone watch Plouffe on MTP? Should I tune in?

I thought it was pretty good.

isnt he pimping a new book on the campaign?

FYI - Roland Martin's show on TVOne won't be rerun again until Monday Morning at 6am EST

Op-Ed Columnist
The G.O.P. Stalinists Invade Upstate New York
By FRANK RICH
Published: October 31, 2009

BARACK OBAMA’S most devilish political move since the 2008 campaign was to appoint a Republican congressman from upstate New York as secretary of the Army. This week’s election to fill that vacant seat has set off nothing less than a riotous and bloody national G.O.P. civil war. No matter what the results in that race on Tuesday, the Republicans are the sure losers. This could be a gift that keeps on giving to the Democrats through 2010, and perhaps beyond.

The governors’ races in New Jersey and Virginia were once billed as the marquee events of Election Day 2009 — a referendum on the Obama presidency and a possible Republican “comeback.” But preposterous as it sounds, the real action migrated to New York’s 23rd, a rural Congressional district abutting Canada. That this pastoral setting could become a G.O.P. killing field, attracting an all-star cast of combatants led by Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, William Kristol and Newt Gingrich, is a premise out of a Depression-era screwball comedy. But such farces have become the norm for the conservative movement — whether the participants are dressing up in full “tea party” drag or not.

The battle for upstate New York confirms just how swiftly the right has devolved into a wacky, paranoid cult that is as eager to eat its own as it is to destroy Obama. The movement’s undisputed leaders, Palin and Beck, neither of whom has what Palin once called the “actual responsibilities” of public office, would gladly see the Republican Party die on the cross of right-wing ideological purity. Over the short term, at least, their wish could come true.

The New York fracas was ignited by the routine decision of 11 local Republican county chairmen to anoint an assemblywoman, Dede Scozzafava, as their party’s nominee for the vacant seat. The 23rd is in safe Republican territory that hasn’t sent a Democrat to Congress in decades. And Scozzafava is a mainstream conservative by New York standards; one statistical measure found her voting record slightly to the right of her fellow Republicans in the Assembly. But she has occasionally strayed from orthodoxy on social issues (abortion, same-sex marriage) and endorsed the Obama stimulus package. To the right’s Jacobins, that’s cause to send her to the guillotine.

Sure enough, bloggers trashed her as a radical leftist and ditched her for a third-party candidate they deem a “true” conservative, an accountant and businessman named Doug Hoffman. When Gingrich dared endorse Scozzafava anyway — as did other party potentates like John Boehner and Michael Steele — he too was slimed. Mocking Newt’s presumed 2012 presidential ambitions, Michelle Malkin imagined him appointing Al Sharpton as secretary of education and Al Gore as “global warming czar.” She’s quite the wit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/opinion/01ric...

Find this on TPM.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/...
Scozzafava Endorsing Dem?
Josh Marshall | November 1, 2009, 10:47AM
{In its endorsement of Democrat Bill Owens today, the Watertown Daily Times said that over the course of yesterday Dede Scozzafava, the regular GOP nominee who bowed out yesterday, "began to quietly and thoughtfully encourage her supporters to vote for Democrat William L. Owens."
The Times itself didn't leave much room for doubt about its views. The strongest line: "It is frightening that Mr. Hoffman is so beholden to right-wing ideologues who dismiss Northern New Yorkers as parochial when people here simply want to know how Mr. Hoffman will protect their interests in Washington."
This is a reference to an incident we noted a few weeks ago when Hoffman showed up to a meeting with the paper's editorial board with former House Majority Leader Dick Armey and then got defensive and abrupt when he wasn't able to answer questions about the district or the issues that faced it. Armey stepped in and chastised the editors for focusing on "parochial" issues.}


This was suppose to be a ROCK SOLID repub seat in New York and you have the chosen gop candidate bowing out to the wingnut and secretly endorsing the dem? Wow.

miss palin is the gift that keeps on giving. Speaking of gop, being a North Carolinian, who would have imagine that NC would become more progressive than Va?
All I can say is dayum, Virginia, dayum!!!

The only part of VA that is "progressive" is the Fairfax/Alexandria/Arlington sector of the state, with black pockets in Richmond/Tidewater.

and those are the most populated areas right?

1/3 of the state's population is in Northern Virginia. IMO the progressives of Northern Virginia were never going to support Deeds no matter how he ran his campaign. They do not want a "hick" in the Governor's office and I suspect that's why Kilgore lost in '05 (and Kilgore really DID sound like Snuffy Smith). That's just my opinion.

Richmond and Tidewater are conservative outside of black people and transplants from other states.

The tell-tale county is going to be Henrico County (outside of Richmond). If Henrico goes for Deeds, he's got a chance. If Henrico goes for McDonnell, Deeds might as well give his concession speech at 7:15 because it's over.

The white progressives are gearing up to blame black people for Deeds' loss, when in reality it's WHITE DISINTEREST that will doom Deeds. (although I will laugh if Deeds actually wins...maybe by 325 votes? LOL)

McDonnell has run a better campaign and he's apparently from every damn part of Virginia. I just saw a big old banner in Northern Virginia on top of a building blaring BOB McDONNELL --FAIRFAX NATIVE. And McDonnell has been living in Pat Robertson's playground for a while.

There's a 99% chance McDonnell will win. And he's going to take this state back to the Jim Gilmore years. What's scary is that he will most likely sweep in Cuccenelli on his coattails as attorney general. This Cuccinelli dude is a teabagger, a wingnut and promises to fight anything out of Washington that he disagrees with. We do not need that piece of shit in the attorney general's office. Even McDonnell wasn't crazed like that when he was attorney general and he is a Pat Robertson acolyte.

McDonnell has made a lot of promises and if he doesn't follow through, he's going to have the same fate as Jim "NO CAR TAX IN 5 YEARS EVEN THOUGH MY TERM IS ONLY 4 YEARS AND YET WE ARE STILL PAYING CAR TAX 12 YEARS LATER" Gilmore.

"Snuffy Smith"??........BWA HAHAHAHAHA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3kQ7v5qRTg

This is Jerry Kilgore ^

my God.....its Gomer Pyle.

you.aint.right.

I've been following this race somewhat close (i'm not that far from the 23rd District). I find it interesting how Scozzafava, at least on economic issues, is as much of a radical as Gingrich, Limbaugh, et. al. It's only those pesky social issues that make her a heretic. I seriously dream for a day in which the elite that rule over us WONT have social and cultural wars to divide and conquer us. I also find it interesting that upstate NY has been decimated by the economic policies so fervently championed by the Republicans. The moment most Americans realize that....there'll be a revolution in this country.

Sunday, November 01, 2009
Is Obama going to step up and actually advocate for the strong health insurance reform bill?
by Joe Sudbay (DC) on 11/01/2009 10:24:00 AM

NOTE FROM JOHN: The sources are no longer anonymous.

With several of the top spokespeople from the White House on the talk shows today, it's important to hear what they have to say about the President's role in the health insurance reform debate. How much is he actually doing on Capitol Hill to get the strongest possible bill with the best public option? Because, indications from the Hill are that he's not doing so much. Rep. Anthony Weiner said as much on Rachel Maddow's show on Thursday. Taylor Marsh transcribed the key points and the video is below. Weiner's message:

You know, the idea that the President could have maybe come in and said, you know what, here’s ten guys that I can sway. If the President of the United States calls it’s tough to say no. We’ve kind of been left to do this on our own and you really need the full-throated support of a president at a moment like this when we’re having a big national debate. … But really, I don’t think we can close this out unless the President really helps us.” –

http://www.americablog.com/2009/11/is-obama-goi...

I take Weiner and his passion for a strong public option at face value but sometimes I think he is being disingenuous. The President getting 10 extra votes for a robust public option in the house does him no favors when he has Lieberman publicly stating that no reform is better than any bill that has a public option. Why should he make house members take tough votes that they will have to defend later on when its not necessary?

From The Sunday Times
November 1, 2009
Barack and Michelle Obama: Mr&Mrs show irks voters
As political woes mount, not all have been won over by the first couple’s intimate revelations

With difficult state elections and a crucial military decision looming, President Barack Obama sat down with his wife Michelle last month to give an in-depth magazine interview about a subject that has hitherto not ranked highly on the White House political agenda — the state of the first couple’s marriage.

The president used the occasion to complain that when he recently hopped aboard Air Force One to fly his wife to New York for dinner and a Broadway show, “people made it into a political issue”.

Obama went on to insist that his marriage was “separate and apart from a lot of the silliness of Washington”. He then proceeded to discuss his romantic ups and downs in startling detail with a reporter from The New York Times Magazine.

Publication of that unusually candid interview highlighted an intriguing contradiction that has begun to haunt the Obama White House. The president’s family has become one of his most valuable political assets. Yet the attempts by the Obamas to shield their private lives from scrutiny are increasingly being subverted — by the Obamas themselves.

When the interview appeared on the paper’s website ahead of publication today, it prompted a flood of reader reactions from “They are a beautiful couple” and “exceptional role models” to “Why should I care about their marriage?” and “This stuff is none of my business”.

There were also several expressions of concern, echoed privately by Democratic strategists, that the openness of the Obamas about what Michelle described as the “bumps” in their relationship, may help turn a historic presidency into a soap opera. “All this scrutiny cannot be good for a marriage,” worried one of the readers of the Times.

The sense that the Obamas are flirting with disaster by parading their happy family life was magnified by Michelle’s Marie Antoinette-like appearance this week on the cover of Glamour magazine — at a time when many Americans continue to lose their homes or jobs every month.

In the interview with Glamour, Michelle discussed her fashion choices and appeared to tease her husband: “One thing I’ve learnt about male role models is that they don’t hesitate to invest in themselves.” The timing and content of the piece prompted Sally Quinn, a veteran Washington style-watcher, to suggest that the first lady had been badly advised.

“I’m not sure if I had been her adviser I would have said for her to do the Glamour cover because it might begin to trivialise her and what her role is,” she said.

The enthusiasm for the Obama family has until now obliged most Republicans to bite their tongues when discussing Michelle and the children, but there were mutterings last week that the president might be using his enviable private life as a diversion from awkward political realities — notably the prospect this week of Democratic defeats in elections for state governors in New Jersey and Virginia.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_...

Wow....that was truly a bullshit column....wait...this is some UK media outlet? Yeah, I'm sure the Obama's are a startling change from the stonewall level of privacy that surrounded Charles and Lady Di's wedded bliss.

Wow is right. I love how they are quick to call him a failure despite the fact that a lot of stuff he is doing are works in progress. These are same people who say that 9 months as president doesn't justify him winning a Nobel Peace Prize but it's enough to call him a failing politician.

Honestly, this type of stuff for the most part appeals to the female demographic. I'm sure the Obamas have and have had their issues just like any other couple. I don't read Glamour magazine and I'm not interested in the minute details of the relationship of another couple. I didn't care about Clinton or Bush's marriage and I'm not interested in hearing about the Obama's. I'm sure this sells out a lot of "girlie" magazines. I'm interested on how PO is doing on the economy, healthcare and the wars. Obama definitely has something that attracts women I just hope he doesn't let it sabotage his career like Clinton did.

Yet the same people complaining about the Obama marriage being TMI probably know all about Brangelina, Jon & Kate and all of the housewives of Atlanta, New Jersey, New York and Orange County.

It's GLAMOUR magazine. Fashion is what they discuss, not policy. I'm pretty sure Laura Bush gave interviews to women's magazines as well.

Wasn't Sally Quinn one of the ones complaining that Obama doesn't like women?

BARACK OBAMA IS *NOT* YOUR MAN. He's MICHELLE'S man. HE. DON'T. WANT. YOU.

Don't all black men want white women? That's what the media says.

Apparently that's what "some" people believe. That's why they are knocked over with a feather at the fact that Obama doesn't want them.

I still luv Town.

Please try to remember Rupert Murdoch owns the London Times. He thinks he is right wing the media mogul in "tomorrow never dies". Like Roger Ailes he is a die hard racist.

For you astronomy fans, the Leonids are coming on Nov 16th and 17th.

Rebecca Solnit is on the money here:

California's deficit of common sense
The state has plenty of money and resources. What we've been lacking is a real-world discussion about how we distribute them.

By Rebecca Solnit

November 1, 2009

California is rich. Even in the midst of a drought, we have lots of water, and in the midst of a recession, we have lots of money. The problem is one of distribution, not of actual scarcity.

This is the usual problem of the United States, which is not just the richest and most powerful nation on Earth now, but on Earth ever, and one of the most blessed in terms of natural resources. We just collectively make loopy decisions about how to distribute the money and water, and we could make other decisions. Whether or not those priorities will change, we could at least have a reality-based conversation about them.

Take water. My friend Derek Hitchcock, a biologist working to restore the Yuba River, likes to say that California is still a place of abundance. He recently showed me a Pacific Institute report and other documents to bolster his point. They show that about 80% of the state's water goes to agriculture, not to people, and half of that goes to four crops -- cotton, rice, alfalfa and pasturage (irrigated grazing land) -- that produce less than 1% of the state's wealth. Forty percent of the state's water. Less than 1% of its income. Meanwhile, we Californians are told the drought means that ordinary households should cut back -- and probably most should -- but the lion's share of water never went to us in the first place, and we should know it.

Americans usually have fantastic visions of where our resources come from and go. A lot of Americans seem to believe that the federal government spends tons of money, rather than a small percentage of the federal budget, on the arts and foreign aid; but in fact, about half of discretionary spending goes to the military -- the largest and most expensive military the world has ever seen, one that costs nearly as much as all the other militaries put together.

In discussing the national financial crisis, the military was never really on the chopping block, even though its budget could, with a little paring, provide healthcare, education, environmental restoration, some cool climate-change adaptation and all the other pieces of a good society and a great nation. Do we really need several hundred military bases in more than 125 countries? And all those expensive toys? And the research programs to do things like weaponize insects? Do we need them more than we need to keep children healthy?

Speaking of poor children reminds me of Sitting Bull, as good an authority on our economy as anyone, even if he wasn't an economist and even though he died in 1890. After the Lakota were defeated, he joined Buffalo Bill's Wild West show for a season, but he never got ahead financially. He gave the bulk of his earnings to the street urchins who hung around the show. He was shocked that a nation powerful enough to conquer his people couldn't or wouldn't feed its own future. The white man was good at production, he concluded, but bad at distribution.


It's the same today. We have enough in this nation to feed, clothe, shelter, educate and provide medical care to everyone. If the will was there.

In California, the story is the same in spades. Take our state budget crisis. A British newspaper recently ran a rather melodramatic piece about California as a failed state and compared us to Iceland. It was a wacky comparison. Iceland went bankrupt because its bankers spent lots of money they didn't have. California is in conniptions because it has lots of money it won't spend. I'm not talking about raising individual taxes, though it would certainly make sense to revisit Proposition 13, and we'd have an extra billion dollars if we hadn't phased out estate taxes.

But look at corporate taxes! According to the nonpartisan California Budget Project, if we taxed corporations the way we did in 1981, we'd have $8.4 billion more coming in. That would wipe out more than a third of the budget shortfall that led to the draconian cuts (and cover about what we spend annually on the world's second-biggest prison system). We're home to the fifth-largest corporation in the world, Chevron, whose profits were $24 billion last year. Chevron has lobbied to keep corporate taxes low and to avoid paying an oil severance tax -- a tax on oil taken out of the ground (and we're abundant in oil too, for better or worse). Texas charges one, but we don't. A few years ago, Chevron worked hard to defeat Proposition 87, which would've levied a severance tax capped at 6% of the oil's value -- but Sarah Palin's Alaska raised its severance tax to 25%, a figure that would bring in an estimated $4 billion or more.

Examine the way that we changed corporate income tax policy in the crisis years of 2008-2009 to give a small number of corporations tens of millions of dollars a year in tax breaks -- $33.1 million apiece, on average, for nine corporations; $23.5 million to six others, according to the California Budget Project. There's money there, ripe for the picking, and powerful forces to prevent that from ever happening -- or maybe weak forces, because it's our Republican legislative minority that prevents us from ever achieving the supermajority to raise taxes (and our weak Democratic majority that goes along with crazy tax cuts amid a crisis).

Turning California into a Third World nation where the environment is neglected, a lot of people are genuinely desperate and a lot of the young have a hard time getting an education or just can't get one doesn't benefit anyone.

We're not poor in money or water. We've just chosen to allocate them in ways that benefit tiny minorities at the expense of the rest of us. We should at least have a conversation about how we distribute our abundant resources. Derek is right: California is a place of abundance, except when it comes to political sense.

Rebecca Solnit, a product of California public schools from kindergarten to graduate school, is the author most recently of "A Paradise Built in Hell: The Extraordinary Communities That Arise in Disaster."

(Emphasis added)

do you have a reference?

What do you mean?

the link to the article

Sorry.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-solni...

Thank you what she says is so true.

Rama Yade deals with the horse's ass.

Booker Rising has been following this closely. it's obvious that she's being setup. but, she's fighting. she's not going down without a fight, and you gotta respect her for that.

Secret English court seizes billions in assets from the mentally impaired

http://joshfulton.blogspot.com/2009/10/secret-e...

A couple things from this morning's NYT. I apolgize for the long drawn out references that prevent you from reading the posts w/o becoming a member. I can't get the system to recognize my password or allow me to use my hint and it will not allow me another one because it recognizes the URL.

It looks like the NYT will let you read the posts today w/o joining.

Thomas Friedman makes a case for a national narative for President Obama's policies.

Fredo, Timmy and Congress have the blood of taxpayers on their hands as they continue to prop up the failing enterprise called Citigroup.

In the print edition called national edition(I don't know if this is the same paper say in St Louis Mo) check out Macy's ad on page 26(3 tweens(?)) then compare it w/ 6 & 7. These people have no idea how much the truth and reality of the world is page 26.

Lastly the reality of the what the recession means to states period: California is the example: continuing falling revenue. It reinforces the idea that Friedman pushes for a national narrative; we are all in this together, this is the plan and how the parts are all related.

How Goldman secretly bet on the U.S. housing crash
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/77791.html

Sunday Shame: Halloween Edition: We went from house to house and the warmth and comfort of my couch seemed a distant memory. I thought about the beautiful indentation I have made in it from hours of serious butt planting. Even as rubbed my hands together for warmth, I knew the cat was sprawled on the couch thinking, “Silly humans victory is mine. You’ll be frozen before dawn.” No, really, I was not meant to freeze.

We walked until I thought their little arms could not heft another ounce of candy but ooooh the little devils had a plan. They whipped out a huge garbage bag, dumped their candy into it and then handed it to me to carry. Once again with arms unburdened with confectionary delights, they hit another door. I made eye contact with other parents and we shared a look of solidarity.

I am LMAO. they totally had a plan..that you couldn't see it...oh well, sometimes you lose the moves with age..LOL

you gotta give them credit for being so swift.

"ooooh the little devils had a plan. They whipped out a huge garbage bag, dumped their candy into it and then handed it to me to carry."
You got played ROTFLMBAO.

It is unfortunate we have to be helicopter parents and go w/ our children. when I was little that ever happened. We just came home got more shopping bags, got loaded up w/ what mom checked-no popcorn balls or fruit and off we'd go.

They got my number alright, but that is exactly why I defend my right to tax their candy

"Tax their candy" ROTFLMBAO

Facebook has rewritten its privacy policy to cut out legal jargon and has indicated it plans to broaden the types of user data it sells to advertisers.

The changes, announced by PR boss Elliot Schrage, suggest Facebook will give its paying customers more details about how their adverts perform. User data will be "anonymised", the new policy says.

"This information allows advertisers to do what is commonly called 'conversion tracking', which helps them measure the effectiveness of their ads and make them more relevant," Schrage wrote.

"Most advertisers already do this in other places on the web. Should Facebook provide this, we'll continue to respect your privacy by not sharing your information with advertisers, and we'll anonymize any information we receive."

Users who set their profile as viewable by everyone can also expect search engines to index wall posts and news feeds.

A third significant change signals Facebook's plan to exploit users' location.

"When you share your location with others or add a location to something you post, we treat that like any other content you post (for example, it is subject to your privacy settings). If we offer a service that supports this type of location sharing we will present you with an opt-in choice of whether you want to participate," the new policy states.

Schrage said the rewritten document is designed to satisfy the concerns of the Canadian privacy regulator, which has been sharply critical of its "confusing" and "incomplete" predecessor.

Facebook invited users to comment on the new policy for seven days before it is adopted.

Facebook to share more user data with advertisers

In 2006 and 2007, Goldman Sachs Group peddled more than $40 billion in securities backed by at least 200,000 risky home mortgages, but never told the buyers it was secretly betting that a sharp drop in U.S. housing prices would send the value of those securities plummeting.

Goldman's sales and its clandestine wagers on falling home prices, completed at the brink of the housing market meltdown, enabled one of the nation's premier investment banks to pass most of its potential losses to others before a flood of mortgage loan defaults staggered the U.S. and global economies.

Only later did investors discover that what Goldman promoted as triple-A investments were closer to junk.

Now, pension funds, insurance companies, labor unions and foreign financial institutions that bought those dicey mortgage securities are facing large losses, and a five-month McClatchy Newspapers investigation has found that Goldman's failure to disclose that it made secret, exotic bets on an imminent housing crash may have violated securities laws.

How Goldman Sachs secretly bet on housing crash

---

GS bets against its own securities? (feign surprise). GS also bets against states bonds it sold.

President Hamid Karzai's challenger withdrew Sunday from next weekend's runoff election, effectively handing the incumbent a victory but raising doubts about the credibility of the government at a time when the U.S. is seeking an effective partner in the war against the Taliban.

Afghan challenger drops out of election

knew that this 'run-off' would never go well

Pearl Cleage, an award-winning playwright and author, is the winner of the Tulsa City-County Library's African-American Resource Center's Sankofa Freedom Award.

Cleage will receive the award at ceremony Feb. 13, 2010, at Rudisill Regional Library, 1520 N. Hartford Ave. This event is free and open to the public.

Cleage shot to national prominence in 1994 with her play "Flyin' West," which was the most-produced new play in the country that year. She struck gold with her first book, "What Looks Like Crazy on an Ordinary Day," released in 1997. After being selected as an Oprah Book Club pick, it spent nine weeks at the top of the New York Times best-seller list.

Cleage to be honored with Sankofa Award