Elizabeth Edwards Takes on Clinton updated

Good cop, bad cop, Edwards style.

“Their nominee won’t energize them, Bush won’t, but Hillary as the nominee will. It’s hard for John to talk about, but it’s the reality,” she added. Elizabeth Edwards: Clinton ‘hatred’ will energize GOP

It’s getting rough out there. Increasingly, Mrs. Edwards is saying things you hear in the comment sections across the blogosphere. No doubt she’s hearing it elsewhere.

Let’s also remember where this negativity towards Clinton began and how it’s been stoked. Right-wing radio made sure Hillary Clinton’s image was cemented in the 1990s, with Dick Morris and other GOP minions adding more on top of what’s already been established. Rove couldn’t wait to bring up the “negatives” of Clinton. But there is more to Rove’s madness than just the message.

But there is a lot more to this story. The latest Pew poll lays it out:

Overall, more than eight-in-ten Democratic and Democratic-leaning registered voters familiar with each candidate rate them favorably (86% for Clinton, 83% for Obama and 82% for Edwards). But Edwards trails the other two in the share who express a very favorable view. A third of Democratic voters (34%) view Clinton very favorably, and 29% say the same about Obama, compared with just 20% for Edwards. Among African-Americans, the gap is much larger. Fully half of black Democrats rate Clinton (52%) and Obama (50%) very favorably – the highest ratings for these candidates from any segment of the party base. But just 18% of black Democrats feel as favorably toward John Edwards. In fact, 27% of black Democrats who rate Edwards give him an unfavorable rating, compared with just 16% of white Democrats. … .. Black Enthusiasm for Clinton and Obama Leaves Little Room for Edwards

And even though Edwards has a lead right now, Iowa is not a lock and the Edwardses know it. According to TIME, even though Clinton’s “likeability” numbers are low in Iowa, she beats Obama and Edwards on leadership and fighting terrorism by a mile. The question is whether the 2008 primaries will get down to “Who do you want to have a beer with?” Thoughts?

UPDATE: Carpenters Union endorses Edwards. This is good news for Edwards, coming after Dodd’s endorsement earlier in the week, as well as Clinton’s.

Share

Arianna
imagines what it might be like tonight:

Dave: What was the deal with all that cleavage earlier this summer? Hillary: I think the fact that the front-runner for the nomination of one of our two parties is facing a question about cleavage is a sign of progress… Or: If an American president can’t flash a little cleavage, the terrorists win. Or: You mean the Rack of Freedom? Or: Dave, this kind of question is a classic example of the patriarchal double standard faced by women who assume positions of power in America. I’d prefer to focus on the future of this country. On the other hand, I do have a killer rack.

Her point on Obama is hilarious:

Dave: What was your feud with Barack Obama about? Hillary: I just had to set him straight about a few things. He’d make a great addition to the ticket, but I had to let him know that the days of the VP running things are coming to an end.

Then there is the
top 10 list. No doubt it will be interesting, maybe even entertaining. Clinton’s supposed to have a wicked sense of humor. I hope she has the chance to unleash it.

Share

VA-Sen: Warner to Retire?
by BooMan

It’s a simple truth that Democrats can’t get much done if they can’t convince at least 9 Republican senators to agree with what they intend to do. And that won’t change just because we suddenly have a Democratic president. We need 60 seats in the Senate or we’ll have to water down every initiative. Want single-payer health care? It’ll never happen without a Democratic president and a filibuster-proof Senate. It’s so unlikely in the current climate that the front-running Democrats aren’t even advocating it. I’m of two minds about that. I hate it when politicians grandstand by advocating policies which are popular among the base but will never happen in reality. But, I’m also a firm believer that you rarely get something you want if you don’t ask for it. In any case, Sen. John Warner is probably going to announce his retirement tomorrow in Richmond. And his seat will get us closer to sixty.

The key to victory is for Mark Warner to forego his ambition to be vice-president, and run for the seat. The Democrats will quickly unite behind Warner, while the Republicans will engage in an internecine bloddbath between Rep. Tom Davis and Fmr. Gov. Jim Gilmore.

Virginia is trending Democratic and this is a seat that we can take and hold. If you know of any other good candidates beyond Mark Warner, put ‘em in the comments. Because, it’s unlikely that Warner will easily give up his ambition for the Vice-Presidency.

Share

The Afghan War: Which Side Is DOD On?

Expert guest post by Winslow T. Wheeler
Director, Straus
Military Reform Project
Center for Defense Information

Telling us how many dollars have been spent on the war in Afghanistan is fundamental
to the Department of Defense’s (DOD) effort to garner public and congressional
support for prosecution of the war. It should also be a simple question. It
is not.

The Department of Defense (DOD) testified to Congress on July 31, 2007 that
the war in Afghanistan had cost $78.1 billion. The seeming precision of the
decimal point notwithstanding, the number is laughably inaccurate. Here’s
why:

The 78.1 billion is DOD “obligations” as of May 2007. Obligations are neither Congress’s appropriations nor the amount DOD has actually spent. Instead, DOD describes them as “orders placed, contracts awarded, services received, or similar transactions … that will require payments….” In short, obligations are what DOD thinks it might spend. For DOD’s obligations for Afghanistan going as far back as 2001, there has been no effort by the department to document what was actually spent. The obligations declared by DOD for Afghanistan are not just for Afghanistan. They are for Operation Enduring Freedom, which includes Afghanistan but also DOD operations in the Horn of Africa, the Philippines, and “elsewhere” (DOD’s term). The Defense Department has not informed the public, or apparently even Congress, how those costs break down. DOD’s obligations also do not include transfers of funds from regular, annual appropriations from the non-war part of the DOD budget. These may be as much as $7 billion for both Iraq and Afghanistan. There is also an additional $5.5 billion that analysts at the Congressional Research Services (CRS) believe was made available for expenditure in Iraq and Afghanistan but which no one has been able to track. DOD’s figures also do not include classified intelligence activities. According to CRS, Congress appropriated $27 billion for intelligence efforts related to both Iraq and Afghanistan. The breakdown between the two is unknown to the public and perhaps to Congress. DOD’s figures also do not include the costs incurred by the State Department for diplomatic operations and reconstruction aid in Afghanistan and it does not include costs to the Veterans Administration (VA) to care for the US wounded coming home from there. The future VA cost to care for Afghan War veterans is only beginning to accrue now; it will be many billions of dollars.

Funding for Iraq and Afghanistan has included huge amounts that have little
or no real relationship to the wars. This spending includes piles of money for
C-17, C-130J, V-22 and other aircraft that would see the skies over either theater
only if the wars are still raging three to five years from now when these aircraft
actually come off their production lines. Several billions of dollars have also
been requested to fund the Army’s reorganization into “modular”
brigades – a plan that precedes the wars by several years and that would
be funded without them. Despite their weak relationship to the fighting, this
and other problematic spending has all appeared in Congress’ “emergency”
appropriations for the wars and, thus, should be included in the accounting
of the funding for them.

DOD has combined whatever records it retains for money spent in Afghanistan
with the money spent for all other DOD purposes. As such, the money actually
spent for Afghanistan – and Iraq – cannot be separated and identified;
it is unknown today, and thanks to DOD’s record keeping it is unknowable
for the ages.

Surveying this fiscal junkyard in its May 18 report to Congress, “Global
War on Terror: Reported Obligations for the Department of Defense,” the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) termed DOD’s spending data on the
wars “to be of questionable reliability” and “should be considered
approximations.” The auditors at GAO are well practiced at understatement
on such subjects.

Rather than just curse the darkness, CRS has attempted to sort through the
morass to make estimates of what has been available to DOD for Afghanistan under
the moniker Operation Enduring Freedom. The latest results, from CRS’
“The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations
Since 9/11, Updated July 16, 2007,”
are shown in the table at this link.

Being a professional and ethical piece of work, the CRS study explains its
own limitations and uncertainties. Those include the unknown amounts for Operation
Enduring Freedom that are not for Afghanistan but for the Horn of Africa, the
Philippines, and “elsewhere.” They also include an apportionment
of costs for Congress’ extraneous appropriations for aircraft and other
items unlikely ever to be deployed, pre-existing Army reorganizations, and such.
Thus, for an accounting of strictly defined war costs in Afghanistan, the CRS
study actually is an approximation.

On the other hand, DOD’s assertion of just $78.1 billion for the Afghan
war is so full of holes and misinformation that it has no credibility. Based
on the far more complete and transparent CRS analysis, DOD’s numbers are
literally about half right.

The Chinese war philosopher, Sun Tzu, said –

If you know others and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; If you do not know others but know yourself, you win one and lose one; If you do not know others and do not know yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.

Even with the help of CRS’ analysis, our knowledge of a fundamental element
of the war in Afghanistan, its cost, is quite imperfect. Based on Sun Tzu’s
prescription, it would appear that one of the biggest impediments to a favorable
outcome in Afghanistan is the misinformation to Congress and the nation from
the Department of Defense.

Winslow T. Wheeler worked for Republican and Democratic senators and the
Government Accountability Office over a 31 year career on Capitol Hill. He joined
the Center for Defense Information in 2002.

Share

Weak-Kneed Democrats updated
by BooMan

Tighten the Leash on Bush Dog Dems “Dear God, Democrats: grow a spine.”

I might be taking the following quote somewhat out of context, but I’m using it to demonstrate the problem with Democrats.

“If you just say you’re standing up for civil liberties, the American people are with you, but if you say terrorism suspects should have civil liberties, it stretches Americans’ tolerance,” said Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.), who along with [Rep. Alcee] Hastings represents Congress on the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, a human rights monitor. “It’s a tough issue for us.”

Patrick Leahy put it another way.

“People say to me, ‘Well, what about the 30-second spots?’ ” said Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, referring to attack ads.

Let me put it all in context for you.

The terrorism issue came to a head early this month in an explosive final closed-door House Democratic Caucus meeting before the August recess. Reps. Hastings, [Jim] Moran, Melvin Watt (N.C.), John F. Tierney (Mass.) and Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.) pleaded with party leaders not to bring to a vote a White House bill extending the administration’s authority to listen in on electronic communications from abroad without a warrant. Conservative Democrats, including Rep. Allen Boyd (Fla.), argued just as vociferously that Democrats dare not leave on vacation without passing the White House bill. “The most controversial matters are the ones that people use to form their opinions on their members of Congress,” said Rep. Lincoln Davis (D-Tenn.), who voted for the administration’s bill. “I do know within our caucus, and justifiably so, there are members who have a real distaste for some of the things the president has done. But to let that be the driving force for our actions to block the surveillance of someone and perhaps stop another attack like 9/11 would be unwise.”

Unwise for whom?

Alcee Hastings has an interesting perspective.

“I don’t think it’s that we’re reluctant to take on Bush,” said Rep. Alcee L. Hastings (Fla.), a senior member of the House intelligence committee. “I think it’s we are reluctant to take on each other. . . . If I can fast-forward to September, October, November, December and see where we’ll be, we’ll be nowhere.”

Who knows what the heck that means?

Let me be really clear. If you are a member of Congress who has taken an oath to protect the Constitution, you better allow yourself to be voted out of office before you violate your oath. Being afraid of a fascist 30-second attack ad is no excuse.

Reps. Lincoln Davis and Allen Boyd do not deserve the trust of any American. They should be swiftly voted out of office. In a primary.

If we don’t primary some of these weak-kneed Democrats we’ll deserve a reputation for having no stomach for a fight. The Republicans are a party of bedwetters, afraid of every dark person, every foreign langauage, every shadow. And, yet, these Blue Dog Democrats fall for it every time.

The Blue Dogs are forcing real Democrats, real Americans, to take them out. If you can’t stand up for our rights against a president as stupid and unpopular as George W. Bush, then you are not worthy to represent us, to lead us, or to even be spoken to in a respectful tone of voice.

Share

Video: Larry Craig’s mensroom rules.

Boston Legal fans, catch this…

Either David E. Kelley is a genius (which he is), or Larry Craig is channeling David Dean Bottrell out of the blue. In Craig’s Clinton beauty, it was 1999 and Boston Legal, the Spader-Shatner years, weren’t even birthed yet.

Come on, doesn’t Larry Craig remind you of someone?

The minute I heard the tape on “Hardball” I thought of it.

If you’re a Boston Legal fan you’ll know to whom I’m referring. Remember
that wonderful character who
killed his next door neighbor? The woman he was stalking? The guy who just loved
Shirley, too? This guy.

Larry Craig is the spitting image of that character in the YouTube above; minus the murder, plug
in the bathroom tango instead. Unmistakable likeness, if you ask me.

As for Craig climbing all over (sorry) Clinton on that old 1999 “Meet the Press” tape, who’s the “bad boy,” the “naughty boy,” the “nasty, bad, naughty boy” now?

Share

Bleak GOP Senate Outlook
by BooMan

MSNBC discusses the possibility of a filibuster-proof 60+ majority for the Democrats in the U.S. Senate after the 2008 elections. I talked about exactly this possibility with Chris Bowers last night. He was suggesting a maximum upside of 56-57 seats, and I said it was 62. Let me explain.

Chris is pulling his 56-57 number from the conventional wisdom that senators hailing from Kerry states are ln grave danger of losing. Here are the Kerry state GOP senators that are up for re-election in 2008: Susan Collins (ME), John Sununu (NH), Norm Coleman (MN), and Gordon Smith (OR). If they all lose and we hold all our seats, that gets us to a 55-45 Dem caucus majority. To this, we can add the open seat in Colorado where Mark Udall is vying for Wayne Allard’s seat. These are the core at-risk seats. But there is a second-tier of vulnerable seats.

New Mexico is neither a Bush state nor a Kerry state. The election result there was basically a tie. And Pete Domenici has been badly tarnished by the AttorneyGate affair. He’s going to get a hell of a race from green real estate developer Don Wiviott, who has the ability to self-finance. (But you can contribute, too, if you want to help send Pajamas Pete into retirement). If Domenici, who is 75, seeks retirement, this seat will probably be a Lean Dem seat.

John Warner of Virginia is probably going to retire. He’s not really raising money for his re-election. If John Warner retires it is likely that Mark Warner will run for his seat. And Mark Warner would have to be favored over either Congressman Tom Davis or Fmr. Gov. Jim Gilmore.

If we win either/both of these seats it could put us up to 57-58.

So…how do we get 4-5 more senate seats? First…let me say that we are not there yet. We still need to do a little more recruitment. But, for starters, let’s look to Nebraska. Chuck Hagel is probably going to retire. If he does, Fmr. Sen. Bob Kerrey is likely to run for his seat. And, I’d have to favor Kerrey to win. I have no enthusiasm for a return of Kerrey, but this race could give us 59.

Another candidacy that has the Netroots excited is Andrew Rice’s run at Jim Inhofe’s seat in Oklahoma. Rice is a newly minted state senator from Oklahoma City. He’s only 34. But he’s also a Harvard Divinity student that has dedicated his life to fighting religious extremism after his brother died in the World Trade Center collapse. He’s progressive on the issues and he is young, smart, good-looking, and energetic (all things that Inhofe is not). This would be a huge upset, but it is an upset a lot of people, including me, think is plausible. Rice could make 60.

Believe it or not, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has serious problems. His poll numbers have been dropping like a stone, the Kentucky GOP is suffering from corruption and internal division, and Democratic Attorney General, Greg Stumbo, has set up an exploratory committee. On the current trajectory, a McConnell-Stumbo match-up could be a toss-up. Stumbo could be 60.

Even before Larry Craig got arrested for soliciting sex in a public airport restroom, it was rumored that he might retire. I sincerely doubt he will run again. Republican Lt. Gov. Jim Risch is the most likely candidate for the GOP. He will be opposed by former congressman Larry LaRocco, who is blogging at Daily Kos today at 2pm EST. Risch won his lieutenant governor job in 2004 by defeating LaRocco (very badly). So, I can’t say that this race will be easy or that it is currently a toss-up. But it isn’t impossible. This could be 62.

I haven’t even mentioned the most unpopular senator of all…John Cornyn of Texas. He is facing two formidable candidates in attorney Mikal Watts and State Senator Rick Noriega. This race is insurance on that 62 mark.

Recruitment in other races has been disappointing. I’d like to get behind the primary campaign of Dr. Rand Knight in Georgia. State Senator Vivian Figures has an uphill climb against Jeff Sessions in Alabama. We’re still looking for candidates in South Carolina (Lindsey Graham), North Carolina (Liddy Dole), Tennessee (Lamar Alexander), Kansas (Pat Roberts), and the two Wyoming seats (Enzi and Barrasso). With the right recruitments both North Carolina and Tennessee could be competitive.

Share

Good Money After Bad
by BooMan

Tom Ricks continues his reporting on the Fiasco in Iraq. It seems that it is more expensive than advertised.

President Bush plans to ask Congress next month for up to $50 billion in additional funding for the war in Iraq, a White House official said yesterday, a move that appears to reflect increasing administration confidence that it can fend off congressional calls for a rapid drawdown of U.S. forces. The request — which would come on top of about $460 billion in the fiscal 2008 defense budget and $147 billion in a pending supplemental bill to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq — is expected to be announced after congressional hearings scheduled for mid-September featuring the two top U.S. officials in Iraq. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker will assess the state of the war and the effect of the new strategy the U.S. military has pursued this year. The request is being prepared now in the belief that Congress will be unlikely to balk so soon after hearing the two officials argue that there are promising developments in Iraq but that they need more time to solidify the progress they have made, a congressional aide said.

For those of you scoring at home, a little perspective:

In Fiscal Year 2006, the U. S. Government spent $406 Billion of your money on interest payments* to the holders of the National Debt. Compare that to NASA at $15 Billion, Education at $61 Billion, and Department of Transportation at $56 Billion.

If we weren’t surging in Iraq we could use this money to…take your choice…nearly double spending on education or transportation. Or, we could pay off some of that staggering debt. If you don’t think this money is for the surge, Ricks makes it clear.

Most of the additional funding in a revised supplemental bill would pay for the current counteroffensive in Iraq, which has expanded the U.S. force there by about 28,000 troops, to about 160,000. The cost of the buildup was not included in the proposed 2008 budget because Pentagon officials said they did not know how long the troop increase would last. The decision to seek about $50 billion more appears to reflect the view in the administration that the counteroffensive will last into the spring of 2008 and will not be shortened by Congress.

Translation: The Bush administration has looked at Congress and found them completely supine. They are announcing victory before Congress even gets a chance to reconvene. Maybe they think the scalps of Karl Rove and Alberto Gonzales are worth another Friedman Unit and 50 billion dollars. Maybe so. But are they worth one additional soldier’s life?

That depends on the NIE and the testimony of Crocker and Petraeus. The NIE said the political front will deteriorate over the next year, and Petraeus has been telling anyone who will listen that he needs about ten years to win this counterinsurgency war. If it takes ten years that might take things a bit past next April.

Despite widespread media anticipation of next month’s Iraq hearings, Pentagon insiders say they do not expect them to result in any major changes in military strategy. The sessions are expected to occur the week of Sept. 10, with Petraeus and Crocker appearing before a total of four committees in the House and Senate. “I don’t see any surprises” coming out of the hearings, said an officer on the staff of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He said he expects Petraeus and Crocker to focus on tactical security gains in and around Baghdad in recent months and on shifts in tribal allegiances in favor of U.S. forces, and to argue that those improvements may open a window for greater political reconciliation in Iraq over the next six or seven months. In any event, this officer said, he expects the current counteroffensive to be maintained into next April. “The surge was designed to last for a year,” he said. “I don’t think they’ll change that.”

But don’t let yourself get to be feeling down about all of this. Someone’s on the case.

“We haven’t seen the details, but we’ll give it the scrutiny it deserves,” said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). “It’s long past time for giving blank checks to the administration.”

I think I’ve heard that promise before.

Share

Vick Already Forgiven? bumped

Not around here. But after a weekend of dithering, yesterday Michael Vick came
out to apologize. Oh, and also reveal he’s found Jesus. Praise the Lord, a passing
convenience.

Some commentators were quick to say Vick deserves to get back in the NFL. Ed
Schultz covered it yesterday morning on his show in the most bizarre way possible.
He said Michael Vick had a bad childhood. Well, boo-hoo. He long ago left
that nightmare behind for a hundred million dollar NFL contract, plus endorsements. Lots of people suffer harrowing things as children, never to see such riches, and they don’t resort to murdering animals (though clearly many abused kids go through that violent acting out, however, most get over it even if they don’t get paid into the nine figure market). Vick’s
dog fighting and gambling ring, complete with dogs being hung and killed when
Vick didn’t like their performance, is a choice this multi-millionaire hot shot
NFL player made. It cost him. Tough.

Late yesterday on “Hannity & Colmes”, Hannity played clips of
radio listeners calling in to a couple of radio shows to say that Vick was getting a raw deal because he
was black. It was O.J. like reactions all over again.

On “Countdown” last night, Keith Olbermann came to Vick’s aid as
well, though he had the good judgment not to bring up his childhood or the race
issue. Olbermann actually brought up some good points, but he didn’t come close
to convincing me.

Those who hate Vick have made no secret they expect the judge, at sentencing on December 10, and the Commissioner of the National Football League (as soon as possible thereafter), to punish him with the lengthiest prison term, the heaviest fine, the most definite of indefinite suspensions. And here’s why they are wrong. (snip) If you hate him, the equation should be pretty simple. His $130 million contract is gone, his freedom is gone, his reputation is gone. We already know what he is — we’re now just arguing about the price. And the real price comes due after jail and after the suspension, when Michael Vick tries to return to football in 2010, maybe 2009. But the sooner the better. No NFL miscreant has been so vilified while an active player. Not gun-play and trouble-at-strip clubs veteran Pacman Jones. Not serial batterer and general trouble-maker Lawrence Phillips. Not turned-state’s-evidence-against-his-friends-in-a-murder-trial Ray Lewis. Not a drunk driver who killed a mother, Leonard Little, in 1998 and was then arrested anew for driving drunk in 2004. .. … … .. Initially, in his convoluted, lawyered-up and agent-approved guilty plea last week, his “I didn’t actually kill any dogs myself, I only told others to” speech, Vick seemed to not understand that his only hope was to absorb and retain as much guilt as possible that any chance of redemption for him depended entirely on his willingness to take responsibility, and blame and punishment. Thus his statement today, “I want to apologize for all the things that I’ve done, and that I have allowed to happen,” was exactly the right start. He did not repeat the nuance, and the loophole-filled admission. He did not “Pete Rose” it. And now comes the tough part. Do not get me wrong, he is Michael Vick not Michael Victim. But if you think him evil, you should still be rooting for him to be returned to football, as soon as possible, from the hell of incarceration, and the hell of suspension, to the hell of a life as Michael Vick, would-be quarterback, pleading for a job while the hounds of public approbation are nipping at his heels. Michael Vick: Most vilified active NFL player, by Keith Olbermann

It’s worth asking why a drunk NFL athlete who kills a mother doesn’t get worse
treatment. Or why a serial batterer gets ignored. Vick’s behavior towards animals
seems to reveal the very core of his humanity or lack thereof. Murdering dogs
by electrocution or hanging? What kind of barbarian does that? Dog fighting
is bad enough.

I think it’s ridiculous to talk about what Vick deserves, especially at this
point. Schultz sounded completely out of touch. Olbermann
is a terrific news man and sportscaster, with Schultz a former football player
himself. But they’re missing the mark by a mile on this one. It’s way too soon
to absolve Vick of his heinous crimes. I don’t hate him for it. I want him punished
for them. So what he lost money, prestige and his career? That’s what happens
to most of us when we screw up royally. A heartfelt apology is a beginning.

Everyone deserves a second chance. Absolutely. But just like everyone else Michael
Vick has to earn it.

Share

More Bread and Circuses on The Home Front
guest post by Cujo359

Latest Outrage on the Utah Mine disaster. image via: Dept. Of Labor – DOL Photo/Rich Kulczewski

Our “news” services continue to cover up for what happened at the Crandall Canyon mine. Karen Zaleski writes:

CNN anchor Kyra Phillips treated [mine owner Robert] Murray like a hero on Wednesday, the same day the Salt Lake Tribune reported on documents that prove Murray had pushed for risky mining methods at Crandall Canyon. Risky mining methods Murray has strenuously denied employing, but which may have contributed to turning his mine into a death scene for three rescuers and six miners. CNN Nails Mine Owner Murray… With a Big Wet Kiss

It seems strange that the Salt Lake Tribune, one of the few news organizations that might be counted on to shill for a local mine owner and potential advertiser, is actually one of the few that have shown any real interest in the affair. Here’s what Robert Gehrke has to say about the cause of this disaster:

The Crandall Canyon mine was nearing the end of its life and mine owners were trying to extract the last deposits by cutting out the coal pillars that were holding up the massive amount of rock above the main tunnels. Huge sections on each side of the main tunnels had already been mined with longwall machines. Once that coal was gone, the sections collapsed, leaving behind piles of rubble called “gob.” That essentially meant that the thick coal pillars that protected the tunnels were the only support for the mountain that rises as much as 2,200 feet above. “Everyone understands that in the West you have tremendous pressure on those coal pillars from the overburden and they are subject to bursting or bursting of the ribs,” [former senior MSHA advisor Tony] Oppegard said. “In either case, that can be deadly for coal miners.” In the Crandall Canyon mine, miners have for the past several months been cutting those pillars away, removing the last of the coal and allowing the roof to fall in. Critics blast feds’ approval of controversial ‘retreat’ mining at Crandall Canyon

They’ve also displayed a rare interest in the victims of this disaster, which is to say they’ve done something beyond filming them crying or asking them how they feel:

Anger and frustration at Crandall Canyon mine co-owner Robert Murray has boiled over among some families who are clinging to hope that six trapped miners might still be alive. Murray has been asked not to brief families anymore on efforts to try to reach the trapped miners after a confrontation with two families at a briefing this week, one of the families said Wednesday night. Jackie Taylor told reporters that family members also are angry that Murray and federal officials are saying that any bodies likely will be left in the mine and not recovered. Angry relatives of Crandall Canyon Six tell mine owner to stay away

Another news organization that has shown some curiosity is the New York Times:

[MSHA Director Richard] Stickler has been faulted for letting Mr. Murray claim center stage in news conferences and act as a go-between with the trapped miners’ families. He also allowed Mr. Murray to take reporters deep into the unstable mine days after the collapse. Most disastrously, he helped oversee a doomed rescue effort, in which two miners and a federal mine safety worker were killed and six people injured in a cave-in on Aug. 16. Mine Safety Leader Loses Some Respect for Actions in Utah

Unfortunately, that curiosity is tempered with the knowledge of where their bread is buttered. The Times tries to explain Stickler’s failures away by saying that Stickler is a bookish sort of fellow, but as Arianna Huffington points out:

Stickler is a former coal company manager with such a lousy safety record at the companies he’d run that his nomination as head of the Mine Safety and Health Administration was twice rejected by senators from both parties, forcing Bush to sneak him in the back door with a recess appointment. The Utah Mine Disaster: A Teachable Moment About Workplace Safety

The Times finally gets around to mentioning this on page two of the article:

In trying to block his appointment, critics highlighted Mr. Stickler’s tenure as director of the Pennsylvania Bureau of Deep Mine Safety and questioned his management at the Beth Energy mines in Pennsylvania, where the mine workers’ union said mines he supervised had an accident rate higher than the national average, in some cases double it. Mine Safety Leader Loses Some Respect for Actions in Utah

Who writes this stuff, the MSHA’s press secretary? Even when they actually take Stickler to task for his lousy safety record as head of the country’s mine safety agency, they do it in muted tones on the second page (below the fold, no doubt, in the dead tree edition) of an article. Even the article’s title “Mine Safety Leader Loses Some Respect for Actions in Utah” is an understatement of titanic proportion. The guy has spent much of his career ignoring mine safety in pursuit of profit for his employers. A better title would be “Mine Safety Leader Loses Last Shred of Conscience Down a Mineshaft In Utah”. Can’t anyone besides a blogger point this out?

Not to be outdone, Bob Murray posted this comment to Google:

August 22, 2007 – We are totally focused on the recovery of these miners and in administering to the welfare of their families. The trauma from this natural disaster has been great for many, but we will not be deterred, and we will not leave this mountain until we achieve a resolution to this tragedy. Google News: Comment by Robert E. Murray, Chairman & CEO, Murray Energy Corporation

I wish I had half this guy’s chutzpah. To continue to maintain that this was a natural disaster, when both mining safety experts and seismologists from the USGS and two universities have quite clearly explained that it wasn’t is a new low in this department. If we had a few more honest journalists in this country, it might actually be considered unnatural, or at least doomed to failure. As it is, he’s just working the system. Apparently, he’s working it pretty well, too. Here’s Richard Stickler, as quoted by the NY Times:

As for the deadly rescue effort, he said: “We felt confident we were putting in the maximum support and protection, and that there was no immediate danger. These mountain bumps are something you can’t predict.” Mine Safety Leader Loses Some Respect for Actions in Utah

Yep. Those little bumps just can’t be predicted, can they? Except by people who understand physics and geology, of course – things you’d expect someone who is running the Mine Safety and Health Administration to comprehend. For that matter, anyone who has seen termites undermine the structure of a house could probably comprehend this situation. Yet the press largely refuse to call bullshit on either Stickler or Murray on this issue.

Has anyone besides Arianna Huffington and the Salt Lake Tribune called him out on this one? Doesn’t look like it. In stark contrast to the reporting of the “local” newspaper, the national news seems to not miss a chance to shill for the owner of the mine and his protector in the MSHA.

All in all, the press in this country have shown themselves to be the same sort of people who caused this disaster – people more interested in their own profits than they are in doing the jobs they’re supposed to be doing.

Share

This is big for any presidential hopeful, but it’s especially big for Chris Dodd.
It’s been rumored for days but now
it’s official.

International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) President Harold Schaitberger told The Hill Monday that Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) has won the union’s coveted endorsement. In an exclusive interview with The Hill, Schaitberger said Dodd was the candidate who had “earned their support,” and that his long legislative record on labor’s behalf was the key to winning the endorsement. … .. (snip) The move, while sure to be viewed as unexpected given Dodd’s low poll numbers, was not entirely a surprise. Schaitberger told The Hill earlier this month that being a front runner was by no means a consideration in the endorsement process. “We really do not pay attention to the polls, which I think at this point are entertaining but ultimately useless,” Schaitberger said Monday. Schaitberger said the union is not “naïve” as it looks to the challenge of elevating Dodd much like it did with Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) in 2004. Dodd has barely registered in most early state and national polls. “We make decisions that in some people’s view are not conventional,” Schaitberger said. “Whatever the D.C. people need to say, so be it. This is for real for us.” Fire Fighters to back Dodd in surprise move

Share

Larry Craig’s 1982 denial.

With Hugh being a big Slick Mitt fan, you have to wonder how Hugh’s feeling about him now. As for Slick Mitt, his judgment is appalling. Hugh‘s
readers aren’t happy either.

jamesj writes: Monday, August, 27, 2007 8:43 PM What a train wreck Gonzales… Craig…Vitter…Bush… So the senator from “family values GOP” is searching for sex among the toilets. What magnificent fraud this political party has pulled off! What utter idiots are those that fall for this! Flush ‘em down in 2008. _____________ gerster writes: Monday, August, 27, 2007 9:02 PM Mitt sure can pick ‘em eh, Hugh? _____________ richard_223 writes: Monday, August, 27, 2007 9:03 PM PUNishment Why didn’t he just use Craig’s list, would have kept him out of trouble. ____________ Boris writes: Monday, August, 27, 2007 9:10 PM Romney’s poor judgement? What did Romney know about Senator Craig, and when did he know it? ____________ Richard from Kent, WA writes: Monday, August, 27, 2007 9:17 PM Craig needs to go, Now! There are plenty of qualified Republicans in Idhao. Craig needs to go, Now! … .. ____________ DonAZ writes: Monday, August, 27, 2007 9:21 PM Tipping Point If this isn’t it, we’re damn close to it. I consider myself a sensible guy, a conservative who prefers to weigh matters rather than cite slogans. I read this and I thought to myself, “The accumulated weight of the rot that infests the core of the GOP has become almost too much to bear.” Here’s the difference — I’m damn near too weary to even offer a DEFENSE of the GOP any more. I suspect I am not alone. The Republican’s position of power from 1994 on created a cancer that went to the bone. I’m fully aware of the danger of allowing the Democrat majority to expand, and the danger of having a D president with a D Senate and House. But at what point in time do the party faithful just close their eyes, weep, and walk away? I contend the time is damn well nigh. Senator Craig Should Resign

TPM has the arrest report.

Share

Maybe Bush Will Change…This Time
by BooMan

Everytime something bad happens with this administration we get new articles saying that President Bush now has some great opportunity to do…something less bad. At this point the articles almost write themselves. For example:

“The Texas mafia is leaving,” said Ron Kaufman, a longtime political advisor to the Bush family. “There’s a shift in the philosophies of the appointees you have [around the president]. They are much more creatures of Washington, D.C., and not Austin, Texas.” But therein may lie an opportunity for Bush. In two weeks, the president has accepted the resignations of the two members of his staff who have drawn the most ire from the Democrats who now control Congress: Gonzales and political advisor Karl Rove. And that may give Bush a chance to salvage his relationship with Capitol Hill and the legacy of his second term. “Politically, this is great for Bush,” said George C. Edwards III, a presidential scholar at Texas A&M University. “Gonzales was a source of controversy, undermining respect for the presidency and the administration.”

I used to do this too. I’d wrack my brain trying to think what the best thing for the president to do would be and then I’d write it up as a kind of advice piece. I don’t do that anymore. I try to learn from experience.

The president almost always replaces failed public servants with even more hopeless incompetents. The only exception I can think of is his replacement of Don Rumsfeld with Robert Gates. Gates has been an improvement. But think of the irony. When he was at the CIA, Gates lied to Congress during the Iran-Contra affair and was known for fixing the facts around Reagan’s policies.

Schumer recalled the experience of President Reagan, who was hobbled by the Iran-Contra controversy in his second term. Reagan revamped his presidency by shuffling his top aides and bringing in new staffers with more Washington experience. “In 1986, Ronald Reagan’s second term, in the middle of it, he was in trouble. And what he did is he changed course. He brought in [former Tennessee Sen.] Howard Baker, he brought in a whole new bunch of people, and we had a great two years,” Schumer said. “You know, I hope George Bush takes a page from Ronald Reagan’s book.”

Bush’s one decent appointment involved appointing someone from the Iran-Contra scandal that forced Reagan to retool. And, in any case, Senator Schumer is smoking crack if he thinks we’re going to have great couple of years with the Bush administration. Here’s a more realistic assessment.

One key member of that new team was Kenneth M. Duberstein, who served as Reagan’s last chief of staff. Duberstein on Monday speculated that it might be too late to lift the Bush presidency. “The damage has already been done to Bush,” he said.

Yup.

Share

Bush Owes Gonzo

“Integrity“.

“Decency”.

“Principle”.

Another Republican disgraced.

But did Bush actually give Gonzo credit for upholding civil rights laws? This guy needs to come with a laugh track at this point. Especially if he’s truly serious about Mr. Chertoff.

Gonzo has been Bush’s bag man for a long time. It’s going to get lonely in the White House now.

Share

Hand this Draft Dodger a Diaper

When the Marines at Camp Pendleton hear about this they’ll be shredding the
pictures they took with Ted Nugent. When I was at an
event for the Devil Dog Marines at Camp Pendleton, the guys loved to get
their pictures taken with him. But this news puts a whole new meaning on it
and the Marines won’t like it.

Via
John Amato:

That Nugent, he’s a man’s man. He talks the talk and walks the walk, right? Except when it was time to register for the draft during the Vietnam era. By his own admission, Nugent stopped all forms of personal hygiene for a month and showed up for his draft board physical in pants caked with his own urine and feces, winning a deferment. Creative! … .. Facing a draft, Nugent bravely wet his pants

Wonder if they handed him a diaper?

Oh, and by the way, the
YouTube outing Nugent for carrying automatic weapons on stage has
been disabled. I bet. But thanks to John
Amato at C&L we still have the video.

Wonder how Hannity will take the news? Ignore it, because the truth always
gets in the way of his fictional political tales.

Oh, and to add, you can contact draft dodging, diaper dependent Ted if you want. I’m sure he’d appreciate hearing from you.

Share

It’s All Just One Big Misunderstanding updated below

The guy on the left is just an innocent guy in a picture with Senator Larry Craig who isn’t.

Roll Call broke the story, but another “family values” Republican
just got busted. Well, not “just,” since it happened in June and it’s
been on the hush-hush. Via MSNBC:

“My experience has shown that individuals engaging in lewd conduct use their bags to block the view from the front of their stall,” Karsnia stated in his report. “From my seated position, I could observe the shoes and ankles of Craig seated to the left of me.” Craig was wearing dress pants with black dress shoes. “At 1216 hours, Craig tapped his right foot. I recognized this as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct. Craig tapped his toes several times and moves his foot closer to my foot. I moved my foot up and down slowly. While this was occurring, the male in the stall to my right was still present. I could hear several unknown persons in the restroom that appeared to use the restroom for its intended use. The presence of others did not seem to deter Craig as he moved his right foot so that it touched the side of my left foot which was within my stall area,” the report states. THE ARREST ROOM, by Countdown

Howie
Klein has more, including a
photo that is hilarious.

The way the Republicans are going, with Mark Foley and all the other perverts,
we’re going to have to inaugurate the George Michael hall of shame pretty soon.
It’s fitting that these guys are all the first to jump on every anti gay legislation
that comes forth.

BlogActive
had Craig’s number a long time ago.

Jesus’
General is just bad, as only the general can be.

UPDATE: It’s been a work day for me, so I’ve been getting lots of emails about Romney possibly scrubbing his presidential campaign site of all Larry Craig references. If you see anything else post it in the comments. Craig’s endorsement video of Romney has been nuked. Also, Craig has released a statement. Hold on, it’s a beauty:

“I should have had the advice of counsel in resolving this matter. In hindsight, I should not have pled guilty. I was trying to handle this matter myself quickly and expeditiously.” – Larry Craig

Share