Reid Leads in Nevada Senate Race – Democracy NOW! — 9:50.

Harry Reid to Bloggers at Netroots Nation: “I’m Proud of You for Taking On The Tea Party” — 9:29.

Uncertain Future for Reid Despite Rebound in Nev., ABC News Politics, July 25, 2010, by MICHAEL R. BLOOD AP Political Writer (Associated Press, quoted verbatim:

Despite Reid’s rebound in Nev. against GOP foe, Dems worry poor economy could drag him down.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid’s chances for six more years in Washington may be like tossing dice in a casino, even if he has made headway against Republican challenger Sharron Angle in a state with the nation’s highest rate of joblessness.

The four-term Reid holds a slight lead over Angle in the latest polling, thanks in part to her unsteady performance since winning the June primary and to Democratic ads portraying her as an extremist. Video of Angle scurrying away from reporters has mixed with television commercials of older voters upset about her call to phase out Social Security and Medicare.

But an internal memo obtained by The Associated Press says Reid has a “a serious problem” with voters frustrated with the economy and “receives a great deal of blame.” The July 15 memo is based on polling research conducted for Patriot Majority, a union-funded group that is running TV ads against Angle.

How did Sharron Angle blow an 11-point lead on Harry Reid in seven weeks?

How did Sharron Angle blow an 11-point lead on Harry Reid in seven weeks?, Christian Science Monitor, July 28, 2010, by Brad Knickerbocker, excerpt quoted verbatim:

Just a few weeks ago, Senate majority leader Harry Reid seemed headed for political flameout.

Nevadans were down on their senior senator, according to the polls. The “tea party” movement was zeroing in on him as representative of all that’s wrong with big-government politics back in Washington. And it looked like any of his likely GOP opponents could beat the four-term incumbent in November.

Shortly after Nevada Republicans chose former state assemblywoman Sharron Angle to run against Reid, the beleaguered Democrat was trailing his opponent by 11 percentage points in a Rasmussen Reports poll of likely Nevada voters.

But things can change in a hurry.

Reid has moved ahead of Ms. Angle in the polls – by as much as seven points in the latest Mason-Dixon Polling & Research survey for the Las Vegas Review-Journal. The Angle campaign – with help from an increasingly worried national party – is having to beef up its campaign staff with outside professionals. And Angle is scrambling to change the subject regarding her earlier controversial positions and assertions.

“Reid has gone from being a very heavy underdog to being a slight favorite,” says Ted Jelen, a political scientist at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. “The fact that Sharron Angle won the primary was a major break for him.”

Meanwhile, Republicans “are growing increasingly frustrated with Sharron Angle and her lackluster campaign … fearing she is jeopardizing what they had long viewed as a sure pickup and costing them a chance to reclaim the majority,” reports CQ Politics.

Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), acknowledges the challenge his party faces in Nevada.

“While running for election is not rocket science, it does require knowledgeable people, it does require some discipline, and that’s always a struggle for every first-time candidate,” Senator Cornyn told CQ Politics.

See and watch Majority Leader Reid, live from Netroots Nation, Daily Kos, July 24, 2010, by Jed Lewison, video and transcript with updates. (we gave you the audio of Reid’s comments at Netroots Nation, above.

We’re Counting on YOU! Please share Evans Liberal Politics with friends! While we enjoy a certain level of popularity on the web, in order for us to keep bringing you the latest in liberal news and politics, we really need you to SHARE Evans Liberal Politics with your friends and contacts. Please help us out — we bring you the latest in liberal and progressive news and politics just to share the truth and promote liberalism. Can you help us today?

*****

To make a Word or .pdf document of an article, or share or email it, simply load the individual article by clicking the dark blue title at the very top, or use the icons beneath the article.

We’re Counting on You!
Tell Your Friends About Evans Liberal Politics!

Listen to 150 Rock and Pop Hits!

#1 Rated by Google

Tea Parties Racked By Infighting, Confusion and Dissent, Mother Jones on AlterNet, July 25, 2010, by Stephanie Mencimer, quoted verbtim:

A series of rallies meant to help unify the movement have actually sired confusion and dissent.

The tea party movement is not just a political juggernaut — it’s also become a big business. That quickly became clear following last September’s unexpectedly enormous rally in Washington organized by Dick Armey’s FreedomWorks, the event that helped put the movement on the map. With crowd estimates ranging from 75,000 to 2 million, the rally was such a hit that conservative activists are planning a sequel this year. A bunch of them actually. And these competing events have led to confusion and infighting among the tea party faithful. The conflict has reached such a pitch that Glenn Beck weighed in with a plea for unity on his radio show Thursday. “I don’t care who started it,” he lectured. “We must come together.”

If nothing else, conservative activists will have plenty of opportunities this summer to publicly vent their frustrations with the Obama administration. On the afternoon of September 12, FreedomWorks plans a repeat of last year’s march on the National Mall. Another group with ties to Beck’s National 9.12 Project has decided to get in on the action as well, putting together a three-day extravaganza that weekend that includes a “liberty XPO” at a swank DC hotel and a march on the Mall on the 9th anniversary of 9/11. Then there’s the “Restoring Honor” spectacle planned by Beck himself for the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on August 28, on the 47th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech on the same spot. That rally will be followed the next day by yet another protest march, this one sponsored by the Tea Party Patriots.

Despite the many offerings in the works, this may be one case where competition won’t lead to a better product. Some activists fear that the smorgasbord of events — and the fighting about them — will dilute the impact of a single rally and divert precious resources away from where they need to be: in local elections. Bemoaning all the dissention, Darla Dawald, director of ResistNet, a social networking site for “patriots” recently lamented that “the movement is caught up in a tsunami of egos, nasty attitudes, manipulation, criticism, and pseudo leaders.”

The march controversy got its start last year, when tea party groups stunned the Washington establishment by arriving en masse for FreedomWorks’ mega rally on the Capitol lawn. The event landed with such impact that a couple of days after the march, FreedomWorks’ state and federal campaign director Brendan Steinhauser applied to the US Park Service for a permit to do it all over again in 2010. What he didn’t know was that other people had the same idea, namely activists associated with the 9.12 Project Beck started last year, when he called on viewers to launch a new conservative movement. (Hundreds of local 9.12 groups sprung up as a result.)

Among those activists was Beck’s ex-sister-in-law and the administrator of his 9.12 Project, Yvonne Donnelly. She made a beeline to the Park Service on the first business day after last year’s March to apply for a Mall permit for the entire weekend of Sept. 11, 2010. Then, in November, Patrick Jenkins, the president of the National 9.12 Project, created a new organization called Unite in Action to manage the newly christened “March on DC” and related events. UIA claims to be an umbrella group for a host of “liberty” organizations, including the militant Oath Keepers, Beck’s 9.12 Project, ResistNet, and others.

Its plans for the “March on DC” weekend are grand. The three-day extravaganza “by the people and for the people” has all the trappings of a corporate trade show, and for good reason. Among the organizers is Christine Drawdy, who owns a Florida-based company called One-Step Promotions & Incentives, which specializes in trade shows and travel promotions. According to UIA, its show is “modeled after conservative political conferences but with a purely grassroots flare.” Yet the group is hardly charging grassroots prices. The cost to host an event during the expo starts at $30,000. Renting a booth goes for anywhere from $1500 to $7700. Entry to the event itself runs $50, though a premium package allowing access to VIP receptions and banquets is a steep $250.

For all its corporate veneer, the fledgling UIA nonprofit appears to be on rather shaky footing. Jenkins incorporated UIA in Florida as a 501 (c)(4), a tax-exempt political organization, meaning that donations to the group aren’t tax deductible. The group missed the May 1 filing deadline for its annual report. According to the state division of corporations, it’s in jeopardy of losing its incorporation status as a result.

Even as the group has been heavily soliciting donations (“donate” buttons dominate the “March on DC” homepage), an IRS spokesman said he could not confirm its nonprofit status, meaning that UIA may have applied for 501 (c) (4) status, but that it has either not been granted or is still being reviewed. “We have made all filings required by the IRS consistent with 501(c)(4) status,” insisted Jerry Thompson, UIA’s treasurer, in an email. Meanwhile, the group’s president, Stephani Scruggs, declined to say how much money UIA has raised so far.

Particularly problematic for UIA, and potentially troubling to donors and would-be “March on DC” attendees, is the fact that the group does not yet have an official permit for its march. While anyone can apply to hold an event on the Mall, and the Park Service doesn’t charge much beyond a $50 application fee if organizers can show that the event has a First Amendment component, arranging a march on the Mall is no easy — or cheap — feat. Organizers still have to present the Park Service with comprehensive site plan and demonstrate they have the considerable finances to pay for all the logistics: Porta Potties, emergency medical tents, sound systems, etc. When told UIA is actively promoting its event and encouraging people to make travel arrangements to come to DC, without a valid permit in hand, a Park Service spokesman told me, “That’s a pretty big gamble.”

Meanwhile, it’s unclear how many people are likely to show up. UIA’s weekend lineup is decidedly short on the kind of big-name VIPs who help draw a crowd. While attendees of the FreedomWorks march will get a pep talk from tea party favorite Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) and hear from potential GOP presidential candidate Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), UIA has yet to book any marquee speakers. So far on the agenda for the weekend is a seminar by the National Center for Constitutional Studies, a group founded by Beck’s favorite Mormon constitutional historian, Cleon Skousen, author of The 5,000 Year Leap. There’s also a talk dubbed “Foreign Aid: Enslaving Nations” by Tatiana Milne, a former student at George Wythe University, the unaccredited Utah college founded by Skousen’s Mormon acolytes, who did a stint as a Mormon missionary in Latvia. UIA also says its event will feature a ton of “conservative moms.”

Conspicuously absent from the lineup is anyone or any organization representing the families and victims of 9/11, despite the fact that the march will take place on the anniversary of the attacks. Scruggs, the UIA president, said in an email:

“We are in communication with a lot of these families and to protect their privacy and respect the sacred nature of this event, we have not yet decided whether we will publically release the names of the victim’s families who are participating until the day of the event. We appreciate you respecting their privacy as well.”

The existence of two different organizations planning two different marches in DC the weekend of September 12 has left many tea party activists — many of whom attended last year’s march — scratching their heads. Andrew Ian Dodge, the Maine coordinator and advisor to the board of the Tea Party Patriots, which is co-sponsoring the 9/12 march with FreedomWorks, says that many tea party activists have been complaining. “They’re asking, ‘why are there two? Why are they not working together?’ I’m involved and I’m confused,” he says with a laugh.

The confusion has only been enhanced by UIA, whose website and communications have been vague about who is in charge. “There are huge fights going on in the ‘tea party’ universe on who got which permit when, who is funded by whom, who is sponsoring what,” Iris Scheibl, a member of the South Florida 9-12 group, wrote on the group’s site this spring. She noted that the “March on DC” site “shows pictures from last year’s event — altho’ as far as I know — “Unite in Action” had no part in that event.”

Indeed, few of UIA’s leaders had any involvement in organizing last year’s 9/12 march, according to Steinhauser. Yet that hasn’t stopped UIA from leading people to believe it was the group behind the rally. In February, UIA issued a press release saying, “While few can logically deny that the September 12th 2009 ‘Taxpayers March on DC’ was a huge success, organizers for the 2010 event are redesigning the format, planning early and this year they promise to deliver a message to Washington DC that both houses of Congress and the Administration, Democrat, Republican or Independent, will not be able to ignore.” Such comments have only lent credence to suspicions among tea partiers that UIA is trying to stealthily capitalize on last year’s march success to boost its own fortunes (and perhaps finances as well).

None of this bodes well for the prospects of another huge tea party march in DC this fall. Nor does the evidence that tea partiers may be rallied out. Tea Party Nation, which made headlines earlier this year for landing Sarah Palin as a keynote speaker for a convention in Tennessee, was supposed to hold another “unity” event in Las Vegas this month. The event was canceled at the last minute, presumably for lack of interest. But there’s another reason to believe turnout for the September rallies could be underwhelming.

Part of last year’s success stemmed from heavy promotion by Glenn Beck. This year, though, he’s lending his star power to promote his “Restoring Honor” show with Sarah Palin . Rather than working with the group he helped spawn, he may well help suck the wind out of the “March on DC” weekend. “Some folks just can’t afford to go [to DC] twice,” says South Florida 9.12 Project member Fred Scheibl. Many conservative activists may have to choose: Dick Armey, UIA, and a bunch of conservative moms or Beck and Sarah Palin? That seems like an easy one.

*****

To make a Word or .pdf document of an article, or share or email it, simply load the individual article by clicking the dark blue title at the very top, or use the icons beneath the article.

We’re Counting on You!
Tell Your Friends About Evans Liberal Politics!

Listen to 150 Rock and Pop Hits!

#1 Rated by Google

Exposed!: Post 9/11 Privatization & Conservative Failure, Campaign for America’s Future, July 20, 2010, by Terrance Heath, used with permission, quoted verbatim:

Where’s the Tea Party when you really need them? There’s a bit of investigative reporting from the Washington Post that ought to have launched a Tea Party protest, complete with signs, slogans, and speeches (from the likes of Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, and Rand Paul — just to name a few.)

Tax dollars spend on a Mercedes? For someone on the government payroll? It seems right up their alley. Come on people. The placards and impassioned speeches practically write themselves.

So far, though. Nothing. Maybe they’re too busy demanding that the government hold BP accountable for the oil disaster in the Gulf.

Oh. Wait.

Maybe it’s because the wasteful government spending happened not only on the previous conservatives administration’s (and the previous conservative Congress’ watch), but as a result of a right-wing American article of faith: privatization.

The Post’s two-year investigative reporting project focuses on “The top-secret world the government created in response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001,” which it describes as having become “so large, so unwieldy and so secretive that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within it or exactly how many agencies do the same work.”

These are some of the findings of a two-year investigation by The Washington Post that discovered what amounts to an alternative geography of the United States, a Top Secret America hidden from public view and lacking in thorough oversight. After nine years of unprecedented spending and growth, the result is that the system put in place to keep the United States safe is so massive that its effectiveness is impossible to determine.

The investigation’s other findings include:

* Some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the United States.

* An estimated 854,000 people, nearly 1.5 times as many people as live in Washington, D.C., hold top-secret security clearances.

* In Washington and the surrounding area, 33 building complexes for top-secret intelligence work are under construction or have been built since September 2001. Together they occupy the equivalent of almost three Pentagons or 22 U.S. Capitol buildings – about 17 million square feet of space.

* Many security and intelligence agencies do the same work, creating redundancy and waste. For example, 51 federal organizations and military commands, operating in 15 U.S. cities, track the flow of money to and from terrorist networks.

* Analysts who make sense of documents and conversations obtained by foreign and domestic spying share their judgment by publishing 50,000 intelligence reports each year – a volume so large that many are routinely ignored.

The first article in the series concerns itself with the government’s role in the “expanding enterprise” of national security. Today’s article, focuses on the phenomenon of private contractors working in the homeland security and intelligence industries.

To ensure that the country’s most sensitive duties are carried out only by people loyal above all to the nation’s interest, federal rules say contractors may not perform what are called “inherently government functions.” But they do, all the time and in every intelligence and counterterrorism agency, according to a two-year investigation by The Washington Post.

What started as a temporary fix in response to the terrorist attacks has turned into a dependency that calls into question whether the federal workforce includes too many people obligated to shareholders rather than the public interest — and whether the government is still in control of its most sensitive activities. In interviews last week, both Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and CIA Director Leon Panetta said they agreed with such concerns.

The Post investigation uncovered what amounts to an alternative geography of the United States, a Top Secret America created since 9/11 that is hidden from public view, lacking in thorough oversight and so unwieldy that its effectiveness is impossible to determine.

In particular it tells the story of SGIS, a company that started in its founder’s living room in 2002, won its first defense contract four months later, and by 2006 had revenues of $30.6 million — some of which it invested in hiring employees specializing in government contracts. To help it land more such contracts of course. The company was selected for Inc. magazine’s 2009 list of the 5000 fastest growing companies, coming in at 1,371.

Near as I can tell, the company’s sole client — and thus its sole source of revenue — is the government. So, some of that $30.6 million in 2006 ($88 million by 2008) was spent on getting more contracts — or rather, invested in making sure the company kept its sole client. That is, some portion of the tax dollars paid to the company was spent to make sure that more tax dollars would come SGIS’s way in the future.

Some of it went towards some rather extravagant compensation for the company’s employees.

Eight years after it began, SGIS was up to revenue of $101 million, 14 offices and 675 employees. Those with top-secret clearances worked for 11 government agencies, according to The Post’s database.The company’s marketing efforts had grown, too, both in size and sophistication. Its Web site, for example, showed an image of Navy sailors lined up on a battleship over the words “Proud to serve” and another image of a Navy helicopter flying near the Statue of Liberty over the words “Preserving freedom.” And if it seemed hard to distinguish SGIS’s work from the government’s, it’s because they were doing so many of the same things. SGIS employees replaced military personnel at the Pentagon’s 24/7 telecommunications center. SGIS employees conducted terrorist threat analysis. SGIS employees provided help-desk support for federal computer systems.

Still, as alike as they seemed, there were crucial differences.

For one, unlike in government, if an SGIS employee did a good job, he might walk into the parking lot one day and be surprised by co-workers clapping at his latest bonus: a leased, dark-blue Mercedes convertible. And he might say, as a video camera recorded him sliding into the soft leather driver’s seat, “Ahhhh . . . this is spectacular.”

OK. Stop. Wait a minute. How did we get here? How did we become a country with a that can hand tax dollars to companies that spend them on Mercedes for employees, but can’t won’t extend unemployment benefits to the jobless, and can increase spending on wars in Afghanistan, but can’t won’t spend money to keep teachers on the job or keep 900,000 state government employees employed?

It’s an old story, of course, that 9/11 led to a “big government boom,” and government actually got bigger.

FactCheck.org calculates that the discretionary sums contained in appropriations bills signed by Bush for the current fiscal year — including the $87 billion supplemental appropriation for Iraq — amount to nearly a 36% increase over Clinton’s last year.

Most of the increase has indeed come from military spending (including wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) and activities that the administration classifies as homeland security. But that still leaves a 16% increase in funding for other discretionary programs.

That 3-year increase in discretionary spending, including a 180% increase for Homeland Security, tells the rest of the story. Bush started a government spending spree that left Clinton in the dust. (The Cato and WND links are for the teabaggers, so they don’t just have to take my word for it.) Not long after, private companies quickly figures out that fear was a profitable business, and beat a path to Washington to cash in on the huge increase in government spending.

After all, it was a conservative president doing the spending — with the relative silence, if not the blessing, of many congressional conservatives. And big government conservatism comes with a healthy (or unhealthy, depending on which end of the deal you’re on) serving of privatization.

Once in line for the government privatization gravy train, companies also found themselves in the enviable position to profit from government spending without government oversight. The Center for Public Integrity did a great job of researching and reporting on how this played out across the country.

This seems to have been, for the private companies that came to Washington looking for an angle on homeland security, the business equivalent of getting dessert without having to eat their vegetables. According to the House Committee on Government and Oversight Reform that’s exactly what happened.

Under the Bush Administration, the “shadow government” of private companies working under federal contract has exploded in size. Between 2000 and 2005, procurement spending increased by over $175 billion dollars, making federal contracts the fastest growing component of federal discretionary spending.

This growth in federal procurement has enriched private contractors. But it has also come at a steep cost for federal taxpayers. Overcharging has been frequent, and billions of dollars of taxpayer money have been squandered.

At the request of Rep. Henry A. Waxman, this report is the first comprehensive assessment of federal contracting under the Bush Administration. The report reaches three primary conclusions:

1. Procurement Spending Is Accelerating Rapidly. Between 2000 and 2005, procurement spending rose by 86% to $377.5 billion annually. Spending on federal contracts grew over twice as fast as other discretionary federal spending. Under President Bush, the federal government is now spending nearly 40 cents of every discretionary dollar on contracts with private companies, a record level.
2. Contract Mismanagement Is Widespread. The growth in federal contracts has been accompanied by pervasive mismanagement. Mistakes have been made in virtually every step of the contracting process: from pre-contract planning through contract award and oversight to recovery of contract overcharges.
3. The Costs to the Taxpayer Are Enormous. The report identifies 118 federal contracts worth $745.5 billion that have been found by government officials to include significant waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement. Each of the Bush Administration’s three signature initiatives — homeland security, the war and reconstruction in Iraq, and Hurricane Katrina recovery — has been characterized by wasteful contract spending

Anyone who’s not asking how we got here, and demanding that we change course, either isn’t paying attention or doesn’t care.

That brings me — on the off chance that some of them might read — back to the teabaggers with a simple question: Which is it?

Terrance Heath is the Online Producer at Campaign for America’s Future. Prior to his current position he worked as a Blogging and Social Media Consultant for a number of organizations and agencies, as an outgrowth of his work as Blogmaster for EchoDitto, Inc. He stumbled into blogging and social media after starting his own blog, The Republic of T., but cut his teeth as an activist working on LGBT equality and HIV/AIDS issues. In that capacity he worked for the Human Rights Campaign and the National Minority AIDS Council. Terrance has kindly allowed Evans Liberal Politics to publish his works on an ongoing basis. He sums himself up: Black. Gay. Father. Vegetarian. Buddhist. Liberal.

See Report: Tab for ‘War on terrorism’ tops $1 trillion, CNN Politics, July 20, 2010, by CNN Wire Staff.

*****

To make a Word or .pdf document of an article, or share or email it, simply load the individual article by clicking the dark blue title at the very top, or use the icons beneath the article.

We’re Counting on You!
Tell Your Friends About Evans Liberal Politics!

Listen to 150 Rock and Pop Tracks

#1 Rated by Google

Cornyn unable to name one GOP fiscal policy change since Bush era, The Raw Story, July 18, 2010, by Daniel Tencer, used with permission, quoted verbatim:

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) couldn’t find a straight answer to give Sunday when he was asked how Republican fiscal policies today differ from their policies during the Bush era.

“What does distinguish the Republican Party of today from the Republican Party under President Bush’s rule with regards to spending, which is where it got out of control — under Republican rule,” asked host David Gregory on NBC’s Meet The Press.

“Let’s look at a few facts — thank you for the opportunity, because I want to respond to what Chris said. The last year that President Bush was in office, 2008, the deficit was 3.2 percent of the gross domestic product. Today it’s ten percent. We just hit the $13 trillion cap on national debt,” Cornyn said.

“Where did some of that debt come from?” Gregory asked. “The President of the United States was George Bush when they passed a huge TARP, which was to bail out the banks. I mean that’s what ran up a lot of debt as well. Are you saying a Republican was somehow different?”

“You’re ignoring the stimulus that … failed according to the president’s own standards,” Cornyn replied. “He said he was supposed to keep unemployment to eight percent.”

But Gregory persisted in his original question. “So my question is still: What is the distinction of the Republican Party of today versus the Bush record that you’re defending?”

“Well, I think what people are looking for, David, are checks and balances,” Cornyn said. “They’ve had single-party government and it’s scaring the living daylights out of them, and it’s keeping job creators on the sidelines rather than investing and creating jobs. That’s why the private sector isn’t creating jobs.”

“In other words,” comments the AlterPolitics blog, which posted the Cornyn interview online, “they intend to resume Bush’s policies of increasing the national debt to pay for deeper tax cuts for the rich, to bail out Wall Street fat cats, and to wage more endless and unnecessary wars.”

Cornyn’s lack of detail will give ammunition to critics of Republican policies who argue the party is determined to roll ahead with the same policies that some economists now blame for the economic meltdown — things such as the Bush tax cuts, which some argue contributed to the federal government’s debt burden and resulted in a greater share of wealth being concentrated in the hands of a few.

Many critics point to the GOP’s campaign to extend the Bush tax cuts as proof of this. Last week, Arizona Republican Sen. John Kyl came in for heavy criticism when he argued that the extension of the Bush tax cuts — unlike health care reform and jobless benefits — shouldn’t be offset by spending cuts. It’s estimated that extending the tax cuts, which expire at the end of this year, would cost the US $2.2 trillion. Extending only the part applying to people earning over $250,000 would cost $678 billion.

On Saturday, President Barack Obama took an aggressive stance against Republican tactics and policies, saying the party was harming the unemployed to look fiscally responsible.

“They say we shouldn’t provide unemployment insurance because it costs money,” Obama said during his weekly radio address. “So after years of championing policies that turned a record surplus into a massive deficit, including a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, they’ve finally decided to make their stand on the backs of the unemployed.”

The following video was broadcast on NBC’s Meet The Press Sunday July 18, 2010, and uploaded to YouTube by DemRapidResponse.

*****

To make a Word or .pdf document of an article, or share or email it, simply load the individual article by clicking the dark blue title at the very top, or use the icons beneath the article.

We’re Counting on You!
Tell Your Friends About Evans Liberal Politics!

Listen to 150 Rock and Pop Hits!

#1 Rated by Google

How Democrats can impeach Obama in one easy step, Daily Kos, July 5, 2010, by MinistryOfTruth, used with permission, quoted verbatim:

How Democrats can impeach President Obama in one easy step

Step #1.     Do NOT vote in 2010

    That is all it will take!

If you want a Republican majority in Congress, be certain to not vote in the elections this November, because that is what you will be likely to get.

And that Republican majority in Congress will not stop until they have dragged the Presidency of Barack Obama into the dirt. They will not care one bit about the harm it will do to America. A Republican majority in Congress will do nothing but work towards “Obama’s Waterloo”, and the people who do not vote for Democrats in 2010 will be just as responsible for it as the people who vote for Republicans. That is the reality of it, and the possibility of a GOP majority in Congress is something America can NOT afford.

But you can do something about it before it is too late.

Yes, Democrats have not done all that many of us hoped for, but no matter how upset Democrats may be about that we must admit that this incarnation of the GOP can NOT be allowed to govern. This incarnation of the GOP is flat out insane. Under no circumstances can America afford a Speaker of the House John Boehner or a Senate Majority Leader Jim DeMint. The 25% of voters, the Glenn Beck people, the reactionary right who still support the 5th worst President in American history can not be given power. They will do nothing but attempt to destroy the President, and they will cause the American people lasting harm in the certain political witch hunt that they will stage against this President.

Yes, the Democratic party is frustrating as hell, but we simply can not let this President be bogged down by the certain witch hunts that a GOP congressional majority will put it through. If the GOP takes back the House, expect the GOP to do NOTHING but pursue ginned up scandals against the President and other Democrats, in the hopes that they can take back the White House in 2012. Expect a Republican controlled congress to impeach this President for anything that seems plausible, and quite a bit of things that don’t. It will not matter.

All talk of reforms will stop. All progress on vital issues facing the American people will halt. The progress that is happening so slowly now will come to an end. If you are mad that the President and Democrats in Congress are not doing enough of the right thing now just wait until this insane, pro torture, anti unemployed people GOP takes control of Congress.

Now, there are two things you can do to prevent the nightmare that a House Speaker John Boehner would certainly create.

1. Be certain to vote for Democrats in 2010!

2. GOTV and Encourage others to vote for Democrats in 2010!

Tell others that if they want do not want to see President Obama impeached by insane people they should vote for Democrats in 2010. There is no third party, and splitting the vote only gives power to the side that stands together (see, Scozzafava 2009, Ralph Nader 2000).

If the GOP takes the House they will attempt to destroy the President. They want you to vote for them as badly as they want you to NOT vote for Democrats. Just remember, every Republican in Congress will be a potential vote for Obama’s impeachment, even if the charges are bullshit. That Republican in congress will be just as happy for the voters who voted for him as he will be for the voters who did not vote against him.

Already, President Obama is considered our 15th best President. I want him to be Number 1. The GOP hopes he fails and thinks the 5th worst President ever had good ideas that but didn’t try hard enough. These people are dishonest, lying idiots. Don’t let your indifference and the indifference of others give them the power to destroy, because if they get it they will not hesitate to use it.

I leave the floor to you.

Peace

Follow me on twitter here @JesseLaGreca

Crossposted at The Progressive Electorate.com

*****

To make a Word or .pdf document of an article, or share or email it, simply load the individual article by clicking the dark blue title at the very top, or use the icons beneath the article.

We’re Counting on You!
Tell Your Friends About Evans Liberal Politics!

Listen to 148 Rock and Pop Tracks

#1 Rated by Google

*****

Evans Web Design

Taking Your Message to the World

Leading Conservatives Call for Steele to Resign for Daring to Question War, AlterNet, July 4, 2010, by zaidjilani, quoted verbatim:

This post first appeared on Think Progress.

This past Friday, video surfaced of RNC Chairman Michael Steele speaking at a fundraiser in Connecticut about the war in Afghanistan. While some of Steele’s comments at the fundraiser were clearly inaccurate — such as his claim that the war was of “Obama’s choosing,” when it was started by his predecessor — he also made reasonable, debate-worthy arguments that engaging in a prolonged land war in Afghanistan is unwise.

Rather than refuting the historical inaccuracies in the first half of Steele’s statements and thoughtfully considering his critique of the war, numerous leading conservatives have responded to Steele’s comments by lashing out at the chairman, with some even asking for him to step down from his post. Their message is clear — in the modern Republican Party, you are not allowed to question the wisdom of engaging in a war:

- Leading conservative pundit and McCain presidential campaign advisor Bill Kristol called Steele’s comments an “affront…to the commitment of our soldiers” in Afghanistan and demanded that the chairman step down. [7/2/10]

- RedState founder, leading movement conservative, and CNN contributor Erick Erickson said that Steele “has lost all moral authority” and he “must resign.” [7/2/10]

- Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK), former chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Steele’s remarks were “totally unacceptable” and said that he should “apologize and resign.” [7/03/10]

- Former Bush State Department official and Keep America Safe founder Liz Cheney said that Steele’s Afghanistan comments were “deeply disappointing and wrong” and that it is “time for Steele to step down.” [7/4/10]

- This morning on ABC’s This Week, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said there was “no excuse” for Steele’s comments and told host Jake Tapper that “Mr. Steele is going to have to assess as to whether he can still lead the Republican Party as chairman of the Republican National Committee.” [7/4/10]

- Speaking on Fox News Sunday today, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) demanded that Steele “apologize to our military” and said that Republicans “need a chairman who’s focused.” [7/4/10]

- On CBS’s Face The Nation, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) called Steele’s remarks “unwise” and said “we must win this war.” The senator was thankful, however, that Steele was “backtracking so fast he’s gonna be here fighting in Kabul soon.” [7/4/10]

While leading conservatives may be fine with toppling the head of their party for daring to question the wisdom of a long and protracted war in Afghanistan, they risk marginalizing themselves politically among an American public that is increasingly opposed to America’s longest war in history. A recent USA Today/Gallup poll found that a whopping 58 percent of Americans agree with President Obama’s stated timeline of July 2011 to begin withdrawal from Afghanistan.

It is also worth noting that nine elected Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives voted in favor of the McGovern-Obey amendment requiring President Obama to submit a timeline for withdrawal from Afghanistan — indicating that Steele’s position may be an increasingly popular one in the Republican Party.

Update: As Glenn Greenwald notes, DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse put out a statement saying that Steele’s comments are tantamount to “betting against our troops and walking away from the fight.” Woodhouse’s position is hard to square with the fact that nearly 2/3 of House Democrats have voted to require the President to submit a timeline for withdrawal from Afghanistan.

News Headlines

BP eyes stake sale as spill cost tops $3 billion, Reuters, July 5, 2010, by Raji Menon and Eman Goma.

Private Sector Goes Public: Retailers Devise Stimulus Plans to Revive Sales, The New York Times, July 4, 2010, by Stephanie Clifford.

See Also: Seven Untrue Things Most Americans Believe, Daily Kos, July 4, 2010, by make a difference.

Arizona governor says immigration leads to beheadings, The Raw Story, July 2, 2010, by John Byrne, used with permission, quoted verbatim:

“Our law enforcement agencies have found bodies in the desert, either buried or just lying out there, that have been beheaded,” she says.

Arizona’s Republican governor is trumpeting her anti-immigration credentials as part of her re-election campaign –and her latest remarks about decapitation are sure to cause a firestorm.

Gov. Jan Brewer recently signed a new law that allows Arizona police officers to demand immigrants to produce documentation proving their legality.

In an interview with Fox News, Brewer said, “We cannot afford all this illegal immigration and everything that comes with it, everything from the crime and to the drugs and the kidnappings and the extortion and the beheadings.”

“Our law enforcement agencies have found bodies in the desert, either buried or just lying out there, that have been beheaded,” she added.

The Arizona Guardian followed up on Brewer’s remarks, finding them completely false.

A spokesman for Gov. Brewer told the paper in response, “I’m not aware of any statements where the governor specifies where any crimes were committed,” saying he thinks that Brewer was speaking about beheadings that have occurred in Mexico which could spread to Arizona.

On the contrary, he claimed that Brewer was talking about the fear that crimes that occur in Mexico could spread to Arizona.

Comment by Evans Liberal Politics owner Paul Evans: I’m sure it was just a little bit of an opportunistic comment said thoughtlessly, nothing to get too terribly worked up over. After all, her office now denies the lie. So, the beheaded bodies are in Mexico, not Arizona. And public officials are no different than other people, they misspeak, and sometimes this causes a little trouble. Just because a person is a governor of a major state, this is no reason whatsover to hold them to a higher standard. But for your information, Ms. Brewer, at some point a few generations ago, your ancestors came over to this country as immigrants.

And immigration doesn’t cause these beheadings. ILLEGAL immigration does. Did you forget the little phrase we’re all taught as children? – "Give your poor, your tired, your huddled masses."? Yes, I guess you forgot that one. America is changing. Many American citizens are poor and tired and huddled somewhere not so nice, themselves. But I guess we no longer want to be a "beacon, shining for the world." At least YOU sure as hell don’t. Well, just so long as we’re all Christians, right?

I mean, even Jesus said these inconvenient things I’m sure he regrets. Like where he said three times to Peter, just before he ascended into heaven, “Feed my sheep“. He seemed to almost mean it as a test of Peter’s faith and love of him. But, nah, I’m sure he just misspoke.

Watch Arizona Governor Jan Brewer: "AZ Gov. Brewer Tells Illegals to Take Their U.S.-Born Children with Them"