Election News (?)

QUOTE OF THE DAY:
"Too many politicians from both parties are choosing self-preservation over principle, compromise over convictions." — Democrat John Edwards.


Today’s installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn’t generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:
* Barack Obama has been trading shots for a few weeks with the Clintons, but that doesn’t mean the senator has any ill will towards the former president. In an interview with Time magazine, Obama said he’d offer the former president a job in his administration “in a second,” adding, “There are few more talented people.”
* There’s no reason to believe it was anything but an informal chat, but meetings like this tend to raise eyebrows: “New York may be Sen. Hillary Clinton’s home turf – but the man in charge, Mayor Mike Bloomberg, met this morning with Barack Obama, one of her chief rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination. The pair sat down for coffee and eggs in midtown Manhattan…. The mayor might be a billionaire, but Obama still paid, and left a big tip — almost 60 percent.”
* Rudy Giuliani’s latest ad makes a variety of claims about New York City before and during his tenure as mayor. As it turns out, many of those claims aren’t true.
* John Edwards went into detail yesterday, explaining the mechanism through which he would require health insurance mandates for Americans. Paul Krugman is impressed (he calls Edwards’ approach a “terrific idea”); Kevin Drum isn’t (he says it’s “an albatross and substantively it’s meaningless. It’s just a mistake all around.”).
* Speaking of health care, Krugman thinks highly of Edwards’ proposal, but forcefully rejects Obama’s policy.
* New York Daily News: “Democratic White House hopeful Hillary Clinton made a rare visit to an evangelical megachurch Thursday to burnish her image with the religious right. Clinton took pains to quote scripture, invoke her White House prayer group and recall her devout Christian upbringing during a speech to 1,000 attendees of the Global Summit on AIDS at California’s nationally influential Saddleback Church.
______________________________________
I am a little depressed about the candidates on both sides not a statesman or woman in the lot.

Oh for the days of Henry Cabot Lodge or Adilia (sp)Stevenson.

PBS has been featuring a candidate per week on the News Hour and this week it was Dodd. Of all the candidates he strikes me as most presidential it is too bad he is not going to get the nomination he could win the national vote. Unfortunately the Dems will pick another losing candidate.
_______________________________________

2008: 11/29 straw poll results
by kos
Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 08:28:57 AM PST
dKos Reader Poll. 11/29 -- 9:42 a.m. to 11:12 p.m. PT. 14,888 respondents.

-----------------------2007 -----------------------------2006

--------- Nov Oct Sept Aug Jul Jun May Apr Mar Feb Jan Dec
Edwards 33 31 39 34 36 40 39 42 38 26 35 28
Obama 27 16 21 29 27 22 24 25 26 25 28
Kucinich 9 5 6 4 3 2 2 2 4
Clinton 9 9 11 8 9 6 6 3 3 4 4 5
Dodd 7 21 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other 3 6 5 7 9 6 5 9 8 * * 3
Biden 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1
Richardson 1 2 1 6 5 8 13 8 6 5 4 2
Gravel 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 0
Wow, big shakeup in the numbers. The Dodd boomlet is over, as people start focusing on the candidates most seen as serious contenders. His 14 points drop is almost entirely made up by Edwards and -- more dramatically -- Obama. There's no doubt Obama is surging in Iowa and elsewhere. Is this increase in support a sign that people are rallying around him as the "anti-Clinton"?
Kucinich got a boost because some people apparently like scolds, or perhaps they live vicariously through him? Yeah, I'm definitely guilty of not getting his supporters.
But most dramatically, Richardson has now dropped below the "Joe Biden line" for the first time ever. He shone for a while, seemed poised for a breakthrough to the top tier at one point, but alas, his star has dimmed here as it has in the real world.
______________________________________

George W. Bush, last January:
To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November.


Time to get out then, no?
______________________________________

A Guy To Watch !

Huckabee Shakes Up Romney CampaignThe Los Angeles Times says Mike Huckabee's strong showing in recent Iowa polls, "one of the biggest surprises of the presidential race, is threatening the foundation of Mitt Romney's candidacy and has shaken up the GOP contest across the country."And, "in a sure sign of concern, the Romney camp has begun to raise the prospect of a second-place Iowa finish, insisting it would not hurt his chances in the contests that follow."

Between The Polls

Media Lavishes Attention On Bogus Internet Poll Showing Hillary Losing To Repubs -- And Ignores Reputable Poll Finding OppositeNovember 27, 2007
Ladies and gentlemen, a tale of two polls.
Yesterday two polling firms -- Zogby and Gallup -- released surveys of the presidential race that offered strikingly different conclusions. The Zogby poll found that Hillary is trailing five leading GOP candidates in general election matchups. The Gallup Poll, by contrast, found that Hillary, and to a lesser degree Obama, has a slight to sizable lead over the top GOP contenders.
A couple of other things that distinguish these two polls: The Zogby one is an online poll, a notoriously unreliable method, while the Gallup one is a telephone poll. And, as Charles Franklin of Pollster.com observed yesterday, the Zogby poll is completely out of sync with multiple other national polls finding Hillary with a lead over the GOP candidates. The Zogby poll actually found that Mike Huckabee is leading Hillary in a national matchup. The Gallup findings were in line with most other surveys.
I don't need to tell you which poll got all the media attention. Do I?
The Zogby survey was covered repeatedly on CNN, earned coverage from MSNBC, Fox News, and Reuters and was covered by multiple other smaller outlets.
By contrast, I can't find a single example of any reporter or commentator on the major networks or news outlets referring to the Gallup poll at all, with the lone exception of UPI. While the Zogby poll was mentioned by multiple reporters and pundits, the only mentions the Gallup poll got on TV were from Hillary advisers who had to bring it up themselves on the air in order to inject it into the conversation.
You could argue that the Zogby poll got all the coverage it did precisely because it is out of sync with multiple other polls, and thus is news. But the truth is that the reporters and editors at the major nets know full well that the Zogby poll is bunk -- yet they breathlessly covered it anyway.
Worse, the Zogby poll was covered with few mentions either of its dubious methodology or of the degree to which its findings don't jibe with other surveys. Bottom line: The Zogby poll was considered big news because many in the political press are heavily invested in the Hillary-is-unelectable narrative for all kinds of reasons that have little to do with a desire to, you know, practice journalism.


_______________________________________
Immigration at Record Level, Analysis Finds


Report by the Center for Immigration Studies (pdf)

One in eight people living in the United States is an immigrant, the survey found, for a total of 37.9 million people — the highest level since the 1920s.
The survey was conducted by Steven A. Camarota, director of research at the center, which advocates reduced immigration.

Thursday, November 29, 2007
30% of Florida's immigrants are illegal, report finds about 1 million of Florida's three and a half million immigrants most from South America.


Read how important this will be in the 2008 Election below and how the Republicans handle it.

What the Democrats should say and do.


The Daily Strategist
Immigration, Open Borders and the "Reagan Democrats" – Devising a Democratic Strategy
by Andrew Levison,
(Andrew Levison is the author of two books and numerous articles on the social and political attitudes of blue collar workers and other ordinary Americans)
It is an unfortunate fact that during election years important discussions of long-term political strategy often get oversimplified and distorted in order to squeeze them into conventional campaign narratives.
This is what happened to an important Democracy Corps memo issued several weeks ago. The memo -- which offered an analysis of polls and focus group data on a range of domestic economic issues including immigration and open borders -- got grabbed and sucked up into the mainstream media debate about the electoral wisdom of the Republican’s "get tough", anti-illegal immigrant posturing and whether the Democrats should follow their lead or stick to traditional progressive principles.
But this was not the specific issue the D-Corps memo was actually evaluating and its more subtle strategic analysis and conclusions should not be allowed to get lost in the shuffle. The central finding of D-Corps’ polls and focus groups was that a profound and unrecognized degree of frustration exists among average middle-class Americans regarding a wide range of economic issues, feeding an extraordinarily deep contempt and anger at the political establishment, Democratic as well as Republican. The Memo’s key thesis was that, without a proper political strategy, this deep discontent will not necessarily benefit the Democrats next year.
In regard to immigration, the memo noted three critical facts:

1. While Democrats in the survey identified Iraq and health care as the major areas where the country was going in the wrong direction, the top issue identified by independents was immigration and "unprotected borders." 40% of independents chose this option – no other issue even came close.
2. Immigration and open borders were the top concern for those voters who want to vote Democratic but are holding back – the most attainable swing voters of all.
3. The voters who were most angry about the issue were those with a high school education and rural voters – groups where recent surveys have suggested Democrats might otherwise be able to regain some lost ground.
The first point that should be noted is that these conclusions are focused on how immigration is perceived by a specific group of voters – "ordinary middle-class" swing voters – and not how the issue will play with the electorate as a whole (In fact, when D-Corps studied national opinion as a whole, they found slightly less support for the one- sided "get tough" measures then for alternatives that included some path to citizenship).
More important, the basic problem the D-Corps memo identified is not simply that there is substantial middle-American antagonism to illegal immigration. It is that this sentiment threatens to fuse with three other attitudes among many potential democratic voters: a sense of severe economic distress; a feeling of powerlessness and of being ignored by political leaders; and a simmering sense of class resentment toward the "liberal" educated elite. This was the potent ideological package that Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and both Bushes used to ride to the presidency and which Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Ross Perot and scores of their lesser imitators have ridden to national celebrity.
It is not surprising that Democracy Corps detected this emerging danger. Back in the 1980s Stan Greenberg, the lead author of the memo, was the first political analyst to clearly understand and map the distinct political attitudes of the "Reagan Democrats" – the traditionally Democratic blue-collar and grey-collar workers whose defection to the Republicans has arguably been the most fundamental (and intractable) demographic problem for the Democrats during the past 25 years. The clear implicit warning the recent D-Corps memo contains is that if Democrats fail to successfully confront the current challenge, these voters could be lost for another quarter-century.

_______________________________________

The Buck Stops Where?

The Blame Game

Rove: "Congress Pushed Bush to War in Iraq Prematurely"
Paul Abrams

You are not going to believe this, well, actually you will... According to Karl Rove (on Charlie Rose), the Bush Administration did not want Congress to vote on the Iraq War resolution in the fall of 2002, because they thought it should not be done within the context of an election. Rove, you see, did not think the war vote should be "political".Moreover, according to Rove, that "premature vote" led to many of the problems that cropped up in the Iraq War. Had Congress not pushed, he says, Bush could have spent more time assembling a coalition, and provided more time to the inspectors.If you are like me, you have stopped reading/listening, and are rushing to get your anti-emetic.It is worth remembering that the Senate in the fall of 2002 was controlled, barely, by Democrats. Get it? George Bush, we are being told, wanted to delay, wanted to hold back, wanted to take the time to build a coalition and let the inspectors finish their job, but that damn Congress just pushed him into it. George Bush, you see, is a careful, prudent, leader, deeply concerned about the consequences of premature.Get it? If Biden, Clinton, Dodd or Edwards is part of the Democratic ticket, the Republicans will run a campaign charging the Senate Democrats with rushing to judgment, of pushing the poor President to premature...(well, you fill in the blank)....Not that Iraq is that big of an issue. Rove claims that, if Iraq had been a big issue, that Joe Lieberman, who was pro-war, could not have won in Connecticut, defeating receiving more Democratic, Independent and Republican votes than any of his opponents.I have purposefully NOT provided the (obvious) answers to his claims because to answer is to give him control of the argument. That's Rove's tactic, and I have written about that many times in these pages. Instead, this should be used as a trigger to talk about Rove's history of dissembling, how that is reflected in the Bush Administration's entire approach to public policy and public information. Bush, through Rove, should be attacked for trying to escape responsibility and accountability. And, it will help to make some historical references to rulers whose tenure was so dismal that they could not allow historians to provide objective analyses, and thus try to write the history themselves.As might have been predicted, Rove raises "historical revisionism" to new depths, what may become known as "hysterical Rovisionism."
______________________________________
THANK YOU, ABU DHABI!

NEW YORK (AP) - Wall Street rebounded Tuesday after the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority said it will invest $7.5 billion in Citigroup Inc. (C) - a vote of confidence for the nation's largest bank, which has suffered severe losses amid the ongoing crisis in the mortgage market.

---------------

Well maybe cause I am old but I remember when the U.S was independent, when we loaned money not borrowed it. I know this $7.5 billion pales in comparison to what the govenment ie: Bush's government $ 750 billion a year is borrowing on which the interest on the national debt is $250 billion a year but it is indicative of the state of the Union. A Debtor nation!

I don't recognize my ( and yours) country any more. At least not in the way the nations business is conducted, torture, invading soverign countries because we don't like their leader,spying on it's citizens, using mercenaries to fight it's wars and torture it's supposed enemies and locking up so called combatants without charges. I have truly felt as if I have been living under occupation by a foreign government in which I have no say as to its actions because no one is representing me.
_______________________________________
The way to disaster!!

When making purchases I used to look for made in the USA merchandise, I don't bother anymore because there isn't any.

Americans have been buying staggering quantities of goods from overseas using money lent by foreigners. Foreign exporters have been relying on American consumers to keep them in business. For years, this dynamic has made for increasingly lopsided terms of trade: Last year, American imports outstripped exports by $764 billion, with foreigners stepping in to cover the difference.
"If you’re a global benevolent despot, you want a five-year period where China booms, India booms and the U.S. consumer takes a decided back seat," said Robert Barbera, chief economist at the brokerage and advisory firm ITG. "You need to have a period where Asia booms and we limp along, because the No. 1 worry for the world economy is large, unsustainable trade
imbalances."
_______________________________________

How can you have any Freedom without any Responsibility?
by Leslie H

The corruption and abuse will stop on the day that the American people wake up and say, "Stop."
Read this article to see what I'm talking about:
Please don't skip the article. You'll have no idea how bad it has gotten or why this post/email is even being written if you don't read it. Okay, you read dailyKos, maybe you would have an idea without reading the article, but at least go back sometime and read it ... if for no other reason that to illicit a few good curses of the darkness from your righteous American soul.
At the risk of being a bore I'll repeat myself ... this kind of corruption and abuse in government will end on the day that the American people -- you -- say it does, and not a minute sooner.
Leslie H's diary :: ::
It will end when more than 45% of the American people begin to understand that our Freedom is our Responsibility and begin to pay attention and to vote.
Our freedom did not drop out of the sky into our laps. Our forebears created this government, this freedom that we enjoy and they passed it down to us -- not to abuse or to ignore or to take for granted -- but to keep for the next generation. It is not ours. We have no right to squander it away by action or neglect. It is an eternal and sacred trust, intended not only for us, but for our posterity ... our descendants ... equally.
I would submit that we have only one job as American citizens when we reach the age of emancipation, and that is to keep and expand this freedom, our Liberty, for those who come after us.
And we are failing in our duty.
Likewise, we do not teach our children that this is their task to see through.
Mark my word, your grandchildren will not have the Freedom you've enjoyed unless we all do more to keep it. Keeping it requires that we listen, care, vote, get involved and even run for office. Because it is a fantasy to hope that any government will ever be better than the general quality (heart, mind and soul) of people who manage it and work in it.
We as a moral and idealistic people must teach our children better. We must teach them to listen to what goes on in the halls of government, to care about what goes on in the halls of government, to educate themselves about the good things government can do and the bad things government can do, that they do indeed have the power to correct the bad and encourage the good in government, and at the very least -- to vote.
Each generation took care of our freedom as best they knew how. It has gone in fits and starts, but ever the march through time has been towards expansion of liberty, justice and the common good. Our living and dead ancestors expanded it to include peoples who before, had no freedom at all. They strengthened laws that protect the common citizen from abuse by the powerful. They plugged holes in the shields of liberty to ensure that all of us could live free no matter who in our midst didn't want "all" to live free. They tried to fix weaknesses in our checks-and-balances to ensure that power could never corrupt our government absolutely ... because no one person or group could ever hold absolute power.
And they have each, in turn, passed this freedom, our Liberty, our Freedom down to us.
No friends, our Freedom is not a thing that simply materialized out of thin air or came down to us off a mountain.
Our Freedom is a thing fashioned by human minds, hands, courage and backbone.
Our Freedom was forged by men and women of long memory and far reaching foresight.
Therefore, keeping it requires good minds, hands, hearts, spines, memories and understanding.
If our Founders and ancestors, living and dead, could find the will and the skill to create our Liberty and pass it on, surely we, a well educated first-world nation, can find the will and the skill to keep it from the machinations of small minds and shriveled souls.
To paraphrase Pink Floyd;
How can you have any Freedom, without any Responsibility?

IRAQ 4EVAH

White House, Iraq Agree On "Principles" For Permanent US Presence
White House Releases "Principles" for Permanent Iraqi Presence
By Spencer Ackerman - November 26, 2007, 11:12AM
So it begins. After years of obfuscation and denial on the length of the U.S.'s stay in Iraq, the White House and the Maliki government have released a joint declaration of "principles" for "friendship and cooperation." Apparently President Bush and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki signed the declaration during a morning teleconference.
Naturally, the declaration is euphemistic, and doesn't refer explicitly to any U.S. military presence.
-- Iraq's leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America, and we seek an enduring relationship with a democratic Iraq. We are ready to build that relationship in a sustainable way that protects our mutual interests, promotes regional stability, and requires fewer Coalition forces.
-- In response, this Declaration is the first step in a three-step process that will normalize U.S.-Iraqi relations in a way which is consistent with Iraq's sovereignty and will help Iraq regain its rightful status in the international community – something both we and the Iraqis seek. The second step is the renewal of the Multinational Force-Iraq's Chapter VII United Nations mandate for a final year, followed by the third step, the negotiation of the detailed arrangements that will codify our bilateral relationship after the Chapter VII mandate expires.
A "democratic Iraq" here means the Shiite-led Iraqi government. The current political arrangement will receive U.S. military protection against coups or any other internal subversion. That's something the Iraqi government wants desperately: not only is it massively unpopular, even among Iraqi Shiites, but the increasing U.S.-Sunni security cooperation strikes the Shiite government -- with some justification -- as a recipe for a future coup.
Notice also the timetable. The U.S. and Iraq will negotiate another year-long United Nations mandate for foreign troops in Iraq, which will expire (I think) in late December 2008. According to today's declaration, following the forthcoming renewal at the U.N., "we will begin negotiation of a framework that will govern the future of our bilateral relationship." That means that during Bush's last year in office, the administration will work out the terms of the U.S.'s stay in Iraq in order to, at the very least, seriously constrain the next administration's options for ending the U.S. presence. Even if Bush doesn't take the audacious step of signing a so-called Status of Forces Agreement -- the basic document for garrisoning U.S. forces on foreign soil -- while he's a lame duck, the simple fact of negotiations will create a diplomatic expectation that his successor will find difficult to reverse.



War Czar: Permanent Iraq Bases Won't Require Senate Ratification
By Spencer Ackerman - November 26, 2007, 12:54PM
Could Congress stop a Bush administration-brokered deal to garrison U.S. troops in Iraq indefinitely? Not according to General Douglas Lute, the so-called "war czar." Here's Lute at today's gaggle:
Q General, will the White House seek any congressional input on this?
GENERAL LUTE: In the course of negotiations like this, it's not -- it is typical that there will be a dialogue between congressional leaders at the negotiating table, which will be run out of the Department of State. We don't anticipate now that these negotiations will lead to the status of a formal treaty which would then bring us to formal negotiations or formal inputs from the Congress.
Q Is the purpose of avoiding the treaty avoiding congressional input?
GENERAL LUTE: No, as I said, we have about a hundred agreements similar to the one envisioned for the U.S. and Iraq already in place, and the vast majority of those are below the level of a treaty.
Lute said the White House intends to conclude negotiations on an enduring security guarantee with the Maliki government in July. Permanent military bases and residual troop levels will be specified in the final accord, he said.


______________________________________



The Bush Administration: Against Permanent Bases in Iraq Before It Was For Them
By Spencer Ackerman - November 26, 2007, 12:26PM
Oh, for the halcyon days when the Bush administration saw fit to deny that it sought a permanent U.S. military presence in Iraq. Let's take a look at what senior administration officials said way back when, shall we?
President George W. Bush, April 13, 2004:
"As a proud and independent people, Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation and neither does America."
then-U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, August 14, 2005:
"We do not seek permanent military bases in Iraq. Our goal is to help Iraq stand on its own feet, to be able to look after its own security, and to do what we can to help achieve that goal."
Condoleezza Rice, April 4, 2006, quoted by Agence France-Presse (Via Nexis):
Rice would not say when all U.S. forces would return home and did not directly answer Rep. Steven Rothman, a Democrat, when he asked, "Will the bases be permanent or not?"
"I would think that people would tell you, `We're not seeking permanent bases really pretty much anywhere in the world these days.' We are, in fact, in the process of removing base structure from a lot of places," Rice replied.
Tony Snow, June 15, 2006:
Q Would you like to reaffirm what you said earlier today, that the U.S. wants no permanent bases in Iraq?
MR. SNOW: Well, I think -- let me -- because -- can you define what a permanent base is?
Q No, I can't.
MR. SNOW: Well, then how can I get a question --
Q Except into infinity -- no, no, no, you're dancing around already.
MR. SNOW: No, I'm not dancing around. I'm actually trying to get a specific question answered.
Q Okay, say flatly, does the United States want bases in Iraq?
MR. SNOW: It has bases in Iraq, and the United States will have bases -- look, the United States, Secretary Rice has said -- well, number one, it's premature to talk about how long they're going to be there. Number two, Ambassador Khalilzad has said we have no desire for permanent bases. Number three, when it comes to a permanent base, that is not the call of the United States. As you know, Iraq has a sovereign government. So the issue of --
Q It's about as sovereign as the President being able to go into Iraq and not even tell the President.
MR. SNOW: Okay, well, obviously, Helen, you're preaching and not asking. Let's go to you.
_______________________________________
It's been widely reported and that makes it fact-esque. - Stephen Colbert

Happy Thanksgiving Budget Update
This is what I hear: Bush wants $22B cut from the appropriations bill across the board. The Dems, just prior to watching the dead-enders in the House refuse to override BushCo's veto of Labor H, announced that they would come back with a compromise and cut $11B from an omnibus spending bill. Labor H, the bill that funds Head Start, Early Start, Community Block Grants, nutrition programs for the elderly, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services, programs that help Homeless vets, job training and dozens of other human needs programs and which was already cut to the bone in a first attempt to appease the Republicans, will take another hit of about $3.5 billion. I don't know where the exact cuts will be but nobody can afford to give anything else up without causing increased suffering to fellow Americans so additional pain is guaranteed.
The Dems' message going forward will continue to tie funding the debacle in Iraq to domestic spending and will be clear and simple: every vote for blank checks to fund the President's failed and failing Iraq War means money we can't spend on domestic needs. It's the classic guns or butter framing.
The GOP's message reads like a twisted ransom note: Fund the President's glorious War on Everything and we'll let some domestic spending through. So the party of fiscal responsibility wants to break the bank killing and dying in Iraq with no end in sight and unless that demand is met, they won't allow any FY 2008 spending bill to pass this year - or probably next. That means that we'll be stuck with another Continuing Resolution to keep the federal government going. It will cover all spending that hasn't already been signed into law. Defense has passed and been signed, MilCon/VA is on the brink.
A Continuing Resolution is what BushCo wants because it will mean de facto cuts to everything. Remember, we're already operating on a CR from last year, which didn't move in any substantive way from FY 2006 funding. This is Death by CR and it's a twofer for the GOP because they get to position the Dems as do-nothing, while starving the beast that is the American public and infrastructure.
The federal budget process is very complicated but in terms of broad strokes, it's not too difficult to understand. The Dems started the game by negotiating with themselves and the loathsome Blue and Bush Dogs. They sent a stingy budget to both chambers and came out of conference with a stingier one. BushCo swore to veto nearly every part of it (appropriations bills) and has been doing that to great effect with the help of his party-over-country minions, who refuse to budge. We're stuck with nothing getting past the dead-enders and faced with operating on funding from last year, which is essentially funding from the year before.
If you do nothing else on this issue, call your reps in Congress once a day to tell them that you are watching. You want the budget passed this year with the fewest cuts possible. No CR. No more Starving the Beast. The Beast is us.

Buchananism

With the exception of his remarks on Social Security ( surplus
funds have been for years used for other purposes) and Medicare there is little here for me to disagree.


NEW BUCHANAN BOOK DECLARES 'END OF AMERICA'Sun Nov 25 2007 20:40:15 ET**Exclusive** "America is coming apart, decomposing, and...the likelihood of her survival as one nation...is improbable -- and impossible if America continues on her current course," declares Pat Buchanan. "For we are on a path to national suicide."The best-selling author and former presidential candidate is on the eve of launching his new epic book: DAY OR RECKONING: HOW HUBRIS, IDEOLOGY AND GREED ARE TEARING AMERICA APART.This time, Buchanan goes all the way: "America is in an existential crisis from which the nation may not survive." The U.S. Army is breaking and is too small to meet America’s global commitments.
The dollar has sunk to historic lows and is being abandoned by foreign governments. U.S. manufacturing is being hollowed out.
The greatest invasion in history, from the Third World, is swamping the ethno-cultural core of the country, leading to Balkanization and the loss of the Southwest to Mexico.
The culture is collapsing and the nation is being deconstructed along the lines of race and class. A fiscal crisis looms as the unfunded mandates of Social Security and Medicare remain unaddressed.
All these crises are hitting America at once -- a perfect storm of crises. Specifically, Buchanan contends:
•
Pax Americana, the era of U.S. global dominance, is over. A struggle for global hegemony has begun among the United States, China, a resurgent Russia and radical Islam
• Bush’s invasion of Iraq was a product of hubris and of ideology, a secular religion of "democratism," to which Bush was converted in the days following 9/11
•
Torn asunder by a culture war, America has now begun to break down along class, ethnic and racial lines
•
The greatest threat to U.S. sovereignty and independence is the scheme of a global elite to erase America’s borders and merge the USA, Mexico and Canada into a North American Union.
•
Free trade is shipping jobs, factories and technology to China and plunging America into permanent dependency and unpayable debt. One of every six U.S. manufacturing jobs vanished under Bush
•
"Sovereign Wealth Funds," controlled by foreign regimes and stuffed with trillions of dollars from U.S. trade deficits, are buying up strategic corporate assets vital to America’s security• As U.S. wages are stagnant, corporate CEOs are raking in rising pay and benefits 400 to 500 times that of their workers
•
The Third World invasion through Mexico is a graver threat to our survival as one nation than anything happening in Afghanistan or Iraq*
European-Americans, 89% of the nation when JFK took the oath, are now 66% and sinking. Before 2050, America is a Third World nation
•
By 2060, America will add 167 million people and 105 million immigrants will be here, triple the 37 million today.
•
Hispanics will be over 100 million in 2050 and concentrated in a Southwest most Mexicans believe belongs to them.

Buchanan’s Recommendations:
•
A new foreign-defense policy that closes most of the 1000 bases overseas, reviews all alliances, and brings home U.S. troops•
A purge of neoconservative ideology and the "Cakewalk" crowd" from national power.
•
To avert a second Cold War, the United States should "get out of Russia’s space and get out of Russia’s face," and shut down all U.S. bases on the soil of the former Soviet Union
•
To reach a cold peace in the culture war, Buchanan urges a return to federalism and the overthrow of our judicial dictatorship by Congressionally mandated restrictions on the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
•
To end the trade deficits and save the dollar, Buchanan urges a Hamiltonian solution: a 20% Border Equity Tax on imports, with the $500 billion raised to be used to end taxation on American producers
•
To prevent America becoming "a tangle of squabbling nationalities" Buchanan urges: No amnesty for the 12-20 million illegal aliens; a border fence from San Diego to Brownsville; Congressional declarations that children born to illegal aliens are not citizens and English is the language of the United States; and a "timeout" on all immigration.
_______________________________________
We should limit the time a judge can be on the Supreme Court. As it is now we are stuck with a bad judge for years and years. This may limit the number of judges who are willing to take the job but so be it. As it is now it stinks!
_______________________________________
NAFTA
By David Sirota
"Ross Perot was fiercely against NAFTA. Knowing what we know now, was Ross Perot right?"
That’s what CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked Hillary Clinton at last week’s Democratic presidential debate. It was a straightforward query about a Clinton administration trade policy that polls show the public now hates, and it was appropriately directed to a candidate who has previously praised NAFTA.
In response, Clinton stumbled. First she laughed at Perot, then she joked that "all I can remember from that is a bunch of charts," and then she claimed the whole NAFTA debate "is a vague memory." The behavior showed how politically tone deaf some Democratic leaders are.
To refresh Clinton’s "vague memory," let’s recall that Perot’s anti-NAFTA presidential campaign in 1992 won 19 percent of the presidential vote—the highest total for any third-party candidate since Teddy Roosevelt. That included huge tallies in closely divided regions like the Rocky Mountain West, which Democrats say they need to win in the upcoming election.
A Democrat laughing at Perot on national television is a big mistake. Simply put, it risks alienating the roughly 20 million people who cast their votes for the Texas businessman.
But Clinton’s flippant comments and feigned memory lapse about NAFTA were the bigger mistakes in that they insulted the millions of Americans (Perot voters or otherwise) harmed by the trade pact. These are people who have seen their jobs outsourced and paychecks slashed thanks to a trade policy forcing them into a wage-cutting war with oppressed foreign workers.
Why is Clinton desperate to avoid discussing NAFTA? Because she and other congressional Democrats are currently pushing a Peru Free Trade Agreement at the behest of their corporate campaign contributors—an agreement expanding the unpopular NAFTA model. When pressed, Clinton claims she is for a "timeout" from such trade deals—but, as her husband might say, it depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is, since she simultaneously supports the NAFTA expansion.
Of course, this deviousness is precisely why it is worth asking about Perot’s predictions: to make sure America has an informed and honest discussion about impending new trade policies before they are enacted.
And so without further ado, let’s answer the question Clinton ducked: Was Ross Perot right?
In 1993, the Clinton White House and an army of corporate lobbyists were selling NAFTA as a way to aid Mexican and American workers. Perot, on the other hand, was predicting that because the deal included no basic labor standards, it would preserve a huge "wage differential between the United States and Mexico" that would result in "the giant sucking sound" of American jobs heading south of the border. Corporations, he said, would "close the factories in the U.S. [and] move the factories to Mexico [to] take advantage of the cheap labor."
The historical record is clear. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace reports, "Real wages for most Mexicans today are lower than when NAFTA took effect." Post-NAFTA, companies looking to exploit those low wages relocated factories to Mexico. According to the Economic Policy Institute, the net effect of NAFTA was the elimination of 1 million American jobs.
Score one for Perot.
What about immigration? In 1993, the Clinton administration pitched NAFTA as "the best hope for reducing illegal immigration." Perot, by contrast, said that after NAFTA depressed Mexican wages, many Mexicans "out of economic necessity" would "consider illegally immigrating into the U.S."
"In short," he wrote, "NAFTA has the potential to increase illegal immigration, not decrease it."
Again, the historical record tells the story. As NAFTA helped drive millions of Mexicans into poverty, The New York Times reports that "Mexican migration to the United States has risen to 500,000 a year from less than 400,000 in the early 1990s, before NAFTA," with a huge chunk of that increase coming from illegal immigration.
Score another one for Perot.
Clinton may continue to laugh at Perot and plead amnesia when asked about trade policy. And sure, she and her fellow Democrats in Washington can expand NAFTA and ignore the public’s desire for reform. But these politicians shouldn’t be surprised if that one other Perot prediction comes true again—the one accurately predicting that Democrats would lose the next national election if they sold America out and passed NAFTA.
Foreshadowing that historic Democratic loss in 1994, he warned, "We’ll remember in November."
Yes, indeed, Ross. America probably will.

Cold and Hungry in America

How Much are we spending a month in Iraq? 10 Billion?15 billion? 20 billion?

Barely Getting by and Facing a Cold Maine Winter

Nicole Bengiveno/The New York Times
By ERIK ECKHOLM
Published: November 24, 2007
MILBRIDGE, Me. — They have worked since their teens in backbreaking seasonal jobs, extracting resources from the sea and the forest. Their yards are filled with peeling boats and broken lobster pots.
Dolly Jordan, 61, of Milbridge, Me., who has many health problems, lives on a $623 disability check and food stamps. She turns the heat off at night to save fuel.
In sagging wood homes and aged trailers scattered across Washington County, many of Maine’s poorest and oldest shiver too much in the winter, eat far more biscuits and beans than meat and cannot afford the weekly bingo game at the V.F.W. hall.
In this long-depressed “down east” region, where the wild blueberry patches have turned a brilliant crimson, thousands of elderly residents live on crushingly meager incomes. This winter promises to be especially chilling, with fuel oil prices rising and fuel assistance expected to decline. But many assume that others are worse off than themselves and are too proud to ask for assistance, according to groups that run meal programs and provide aid for heating and weatherizing.
“One of our biggest problems is convincing people to take help,” said Eleanor West, director of services for the Washington Hancock Community Agency, a federally chartered nonprofit group. “I tell them, ‘You worked hard all your life and paid taxes and are getting back a little of what you paid in.’”
Over the last half century, Social Security, Medicare and private pensions have lifted most of the nation’s elderly. In 1960, one in three lived below the poverty line; now fewer than one in 10 do. But in Washington County, the poverty rate among those 65 and older is nearly one in five and many more live only a little above the federal subsistence standard in 2007 of $10,200 for a single person and $13,690 for two.
For thousands on fixed incomes, fuel assistance may decline while Social Security checks are scarcely rising.
Viola Brooks, 81, worked in fish and blueberry factories while her husband worked in textile and logging jobs. Now widowed, she gets $588 a month from Social Security, supplemented by $112 in food stamps and one-time fuel aid of more than $500 for the winter.
But this year, that fuel aid will not fill a single tank. The average house cost $1,800 to heat last year, and minimal comfort this winter may require closer to $3,000; trailers will require somewhat less. Electricity and rent already take up most of Ms. Brooks’s income.
“I’m broke every month, and the trailer needs storm windows,” she said. “I cook a lot of pea soup and baked beans and buy flour to make biscuits.”
“Some day I’d like to go to a hairdresser,” Ms. Brooks said of a dream deferred. Still she says she enjoys her lovebirds and cats, and points out that “some people have it worse.”
Jobs for the elderly, a growing trend nationwide, are virtually nonexistent in these hamlets. Many people survive with help from a range of programs including food stamps, Medicaid, disability and energy assistance; others suffer silently, long used to hardship and fiercely independent.
In a pattern still common, older people here often held a series of seasonal jobs, usually without benefits. They worked on lobster boats and dug clams or bloodworms (to sell for bait) from spring to fall, raked wild blueberries in August, harvested potatoes and then made Christmas wreaths for mail-order companies to mid-December. Wives often worked in sardine canneries or in blueberry processing.
“By their 50s, their bodies start breaking down,” said Tim King, director of the community agency at its headquarters in Milbridge, adding that high rates of smoking, obesity and diabetes also contributed to early aging. The aid programs define those as 60 and over as elderly.
Because of their irregular careers and payments into the system, many people get Social Security benefits far below the national average of more than $1,000 a month.
Velma L. Harmon, a 79-year-old widow, receives only $220 a month from Social Security and has a grand total of $85 to live on each month after she pays her subsidized rent and utilities at her apartment complex in Machias, one of a growing number of such federally aided facilities for the elderly.
She is grateful for free lunches provided by the Eastern Agency on Aging, another government-financed group, but too proud to apply for food stamps that would give her a bit more spending money.
The preoccupation right now is soaring fuel prices: cheaper natural gas is unavailable in this region, and wood heat is often impractical or insufficient. But because of limited federal money, average fuel assistance for the 46,000 low-income Maine families expected to apply will probably decline to $579 this year, from $688 last year, said Jo-Ann Choate of the Maine State Housing Agency.
Viola Brooks, 81, of Milbridge, says, “I’m broke every month,” but enjoys her lovebirds and cats.
Many elderly Maine residents live on meager incomes.
“Low-income people aren’t even going to be able to fill up a single tank of fuel oil,” Ms. Choate said. “They already wrap themselves up in blankets during the winter. This year they’ll be colder.”
The disabled, and there are many, may have it hardest. Dolly Jordan of Milbridge has a history of two bad marriages, a bone-crushing auto accident and poor health, and looks and feels older than 61. With osteoporosis, arthritis, diabetes and obesity, she spends most of the day in a wheelchair and uses a combination of a gripper, a broom and a cane to make her bed or hang her laundry.
Come winter, she hangs a blanket over the front door of her little red wooden house, where she has lived alone the last 10 years and which sits on concrete blocks with no foundation. She turns the heat off at night to save fuel.
Her disability payment is $623 a month, plus she gets just $10 from the state and $74 in food stamps. After paying the housing tax and her utility bills, she said, she must watch every remaining penny. A daughter drives her to the distant town of Ellsworth for cheaper shopping.
Like many, she keeps a police scanner on as a diversion and, unable to afford cable, she watches the same videos over and over — her favorite is “On Golden Pond.”
“I wish for bedtime to come,” she said. “The days are so long.”
Easing down a ramp to her mailbox is a perilous 15-minute ordeal. Still, she said, “I wait for Fridays.”
“That’s junk-mail day, and I read all the ads. That’s my best day.”
She added, “There’s always older people out there who have it harder.”
Frederick and Kathleen Call, in Harrington, are in their 60s and live in a 1970s trailer with buckling walls. They live on his disability check — he has had six heart attacks — and food stamps and fuel assistance. Like many others in the region, they buy all their clothes at a church-run thrift shop. They spend their days playing board games and rummy and watching squirrels on their porch.
“We used to go to the food pantry for a free box,” Ms. Call said, “but I saw an old woman who looked like she really needed it. She was thin and cold. I gave her a blanket. We haven’t gone for free food for years.”
Some people here seem to have sunny outlooks no matter what. In the fishing village of Jonesport, Elizabeth Emerson, 87, is hard of hearing and has a titanium knee but is spry and irrepressively cheerful.
She lives in the tiny house her husband, a trucker, built in 1949, and has a view of the gravestone where her name is already etched next to his. Having a daughter nearby, and a total of 52 grand-, great-grand and great-great-grandchildren, whose pictures fill the walls and the refrigerator door, helps in ways practical and emotional.
Ms. Emerson said she “thoroughly enjoyed” the 25 years she spent working as an aide in a nursing home, and she demonstrated the yodeling she used to perform on command for one patient.
Each day she walks with her dog, Sabrina, down to the stony beach where her family once swam. “I saw moose tracks the other day,” she exulted. “Here is where I used to pick heather.”
With her Social Security payment of $683 a month, she refuses to feel impoverished.
“I was never a person to be extravagant,” Ms. Emerson said, adding, “I don’t play beano,” using the local term for bingo.
Besides, she said, she can still afford an indulgence here and there. “My greatest vice,” she added, “is Hershey bars.”

IRAQ CON'T

Ex-Iraq Commander Says Bring Troops Home

WASHINGTON — Retired Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top commander in Iraq shortly after the fall of Baghdad, said this week he supports Democratic legislation that calls for most troops to come home within a year.
His comments come as welcomed ammunition for the Democratic-controlled Congress in its standoff with the White House on war spending. This month, the House passed a $50 billion bill that would pay for combat operations but sets the goal that combat end by Dec. 15, 2008. The White House threatened to veto the measure, and Senate Republicans blocked it from passing.
The Pentagon on Tuesday said that as many as 200,000 civilian employees and contractors will begin receiving layoff warnings by Christmas unless Congress approves a war spending bill that President Bush will sign.
"The improvements in security produced by the courage and blood of our troops have not been matched by a willingness on the part of Iraqi leaders to make the hard choices necessary to bring peace to their country," Sanchez said in remarks to be aired Saturday for the weekly Democratic radio address.
"There is no evidence that the Iraqis will choose to do so in the near future or that we have an ability to force that result," he said.
______________________________________

1.45pm GMT
Iraq's foreign militants 'come from US allies'Peter Walker

2007Guardian Unlimited
Around 60% of all foreign militants who entered Iraq to fight over the past year came from Saudi Arabia and Libya, according to files seized by American forces at a desert camp.
The files listed the nationalities and biographical details of more than 700 fighters who crossed into Iraq from August last year, around half of whom came to the country to be suicide bombers, the New York Times reported today.
In all, 305, or 41%, of the fighters listed were from Saudi Arabia. Another 137, or 18%, came from Libya. Both countries are officially US allies in anti-terrorism efforts.
In contrast, 56 Syrians were listed and no Lebanese. Previously, US officials estimated that around a fifth of all foreign fighters in Iraq came from these two countries.
US officials have also long complained about Iranian interference in the affairs of its neighbour, accusing Tehran of shipping weapons for militants over the border. However, any assistance does not appear to extend to people, the paper said, reporting that, of around 25,000 suspected militants in US custody in Iraq, 11 were Iranian. No Iranians were listed among the fighters whose details were found.
The information came from files and computers seized in September when US forces raided a camp in the desert near Sinjar, a small town in north-west Iraq, close to the Syrian border. It was believed the camp was the base for an insurgent cell responsible for smuggling the vast majority of foreign fighters into Iraq.
The files also gave details of 68 Yemeni nationals, the third-biggest source. There were 64 fighters from Algeria, 50 from Morocco, 38 from Tunisia, 14 from Jordan, six from Turkey and two each from Egypt and France.
According to the newspaper, US officials believe the raid stemmed the flow of foreign militants into Iraq, which dropped to around 40 in October, down from a peak of more than 100 a month in the first half of this year.
Last month there were 16 suicide bombings in Iraq, sharply down from a peak of 59 in March. According to the report, the US military believes 90% of such attacks are carried out by foreigners.
However, US officers fear this effect may be temporary. "We cut the head off, but the tail is still left," a senior military official told the newspaper. "Regeneration is completely within the realm of possibility."
The US has previously estimated the nationalities of fighters crossing over the Syrian border into Iraq, but the seized files give a more complete picture.
While Saudi Arabia is a long-term US ally, its nationals form the nucleus of al-Qaida; 15 of the 19 September 11 attackers were from the country.
And while Libya was listed by the US as a state sponsor of terrorism, it was removed last year after the countries restored full diplomatic relations.
______________________________________
Iraq
by mcjoan
Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 09:40:56 AM PST
Baghdad today, day 1675 since mission accomplished was declared in Iraq:
At least 13 people were killed and more than 50 wounded by a bomb at a crowded pet market in central Baghdad today, the deadliest attack in the capital for weeks.
The explosion left headless bodies, dead birds and shattered fish tanks around the Ghazil animal market in east Baghdad, where many families of all sects visit one of the most popular attractions in the city on the Muslim day of prayer....
"We expected such a thing to happen despite the security improvement that has been achieved," said Ali Kadhum, 34, a government employee.
"Three months ago, the situation was calm until a bomb attack occurred," he said. "I don’t think the situation is moving toward the better. There is no security as long as there are occupation forces."
Meanwhile, here at home:
At least 20,000 U.S. troops who were not classified as wounded during combat in Iraq and Afghanistan have been found with signs of brain injuries, according to military and veterans records compiled by USA TODAY.
The data, provided by the Army, Navy and Department of Veterans Affairs, show that about five times as many troops sustained brain trauma as the 4,471 officially listed by the Pentagon through Sept. 30. These cases also are not reflected in the Pentagon's official tally of wounded, which stands at 30,327.

Thanksgiving 2007

Be Thankful this Thanksgiving as things aren't as bad as they may Be!
THE VALLEY BUGLE
Post Election Blues
November 5,2008
Well the Republicans have retained the White House as the ticket of Guliani/Romney narrowly defeated the Clinton/Obama ticket
That loss was due to the backlash by white males and Nascar lovers who generally don't vote nevertheless came out in great numbers fueled by their hatred of the idea of a woman or black in the White House. The loss of Florida and Ohio was devasting for the Democrats and the hoped for win in Virginia did not happen. Do to the new policy in California of awarding electoral votes by district instead of winner take all caused the loss of nearly half of that states electoral votes to Republicans even though Democrats won the popular vote there as they did in the nation overall. The Democrats did pick up 2 seats in the Senate and 7 in the house and one governorship in Missouri.
Hillary Clintons promise to extend the Nafta treaty to all of South America as a way to ensure getting oil from the new Braziallian and Argentian oil finds in the Atlantic was also a negative factor for her as was her support of big business and defensive contrators. Obamas support for citizenship for illegal immigrants and his admitted drug and alcohol use as a young man didn't help. Hillarys refusal to end the war in Iraq and to quiet fears of a war with Turkey over the Kurd situation was also a big factor.
The new administration vows to work with Congress to restore the sinking dollar ( it now requires $1.25 to purchase one dollar canadian) get inflation under control which is now at 6% due primarily to the cost of gasoline which is now $4.25/gallon in most states and cost of meat,milk,cerals and other corn using foods skyrocketed because most of corn production are going to make fuel. It will be a cold winter in the North East as crude oil is now at $ 125.00 barrel, fuel oil cost has kept pace and now is $6.00/gallon. Natural gas prices are on the rise as many homeowners have switched to that fuel instead of heating oil.
The economy is not doing well with the Dow under 10,000 and negative growth in the housing market plus dismal retail sales with the outlook for a Christmas rebound dim.The deficit continues to grow and the newly elected President vows to not rescind the tax breaks for the wealthy or for corporations. The Iraq war and rebuilding of its infrastructer continues to cause the government to borrow primarily from China as most other nations have balked at loaning due to the falling dollar. China of course wants the US to continue its free trade policy with them ( the trade deficit with China alone is 300 billion) is willing to help shore up the dollar as it doesn't want its best customer to go bankraupt.The United States is so desperate that it is calling upon Russia ( whose economy is booming due to Oil and natural gas production) to repay the loans and the cost of military equipment it gave them in World War Two..A war incidently which is primarilly responsible for depleting the US domestic oil production as the United States used billions of gallons for its war machines and sent billons of gallons to great Britain and Russia to run their tanks.planes and other equipment.The Bush administration today is seeking to go offshore for it's production of war materials to reduce it's defense spending bill which is projected to be 750 billion dollars for 2009 that is without the cost of the Iraq War or a war with Iran and or Turkey.This has the defense industry in an uproar but Guliani agrees with Bush says must reduce the cost of supplies and equipmnet. The fact that these same industries, thinking Clinton was going to win, supported her rather them him may have been a factor in this decision.
President Elect Guliani vows to veto any national health insurance bill and has threatened to do away with social securiety and to open the National parks and forests to oil and gas exploration as well as timbering.He said he will also ask congress for a national sales tax of 2 to 3 percent rather then increase income taxes on the wealthy or increase the capital gains tax.
Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware,expected to be the next Senate Majority leader, vows that any attempt to place added tax burdens on the poor and middle class will not see the light of day. In the house Steny Hoyer, expected to replace Nancy Pelosi as Speaker, says he would never send a bill of that nature to the senate anyway but it is rumored that he favors a rise in the gasoline tax,saying let the gas guzzleing SUVs pay the bill, as an alternative..
All in all it's shaping up to be a rough year for all in 2009.
Just Kidding folks.

I will be away from the computer until next weekend hope you have a great Thanksgiving Day!

Money

Experience teaches us to be skeptical of the administration on strategy.
Bush’s approach to Iraq is the classic case of a politician arguing that a problem will be solved if only we keep throwing large sums of money at it.
That’s why a report on the staggering costs of our Iraq intervention, issued Wednesday by the Democratic staff of the Joint Economic Committee, is useful. The report noted that Bush has requested a total of $607 billion for the war, and that its actual cost to our economy is $1.3 trillion.
Republican critics of the JEC report, “War At Any Price?” argued that some of its numbers are tendentious. Yes, this study has its moments of tendentiousness. But that doesn’t undercut the importance of the questions it asks. Consider only this number: Interest costs on Iraq-related debt will be more than $23 billion for the 2008 fiscal year. That sum is almost exactly the difference between Bush and Congress on spending levels for the entire budget now being debated.
Why are the costs of the Iraq war not considered part of our larger budget debate? On Tuesday, Bush vetoed Congress’ $606 billion labor, health and education bill because of a $10 billion difference on spending for domestic concerns. But he is asking for a supplemental appropriation of $196 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—an increase of $46 billion over what he had sought in October.
So it comes down to this: Bush can bust the budget for Iraq, but God forbid that we spend a little more on education.

_______________________________________

Thinking Of Moving ??


Mon Nov 19, 3:24 PM ET
NEW YORK (Reuters) - At $2,821 per week, people in Manhattan earned three times the average U.S. wage in the first quarter of this year, boosted by financial sector bonuses, government statistics showed on Monday. ;
Equivalent to nearly $147,000 per year, average weekly pay for Manhattan residents shot up 16.7 percent from the same period of 2006, maintaining its spot as the wealthiest county in the United States.
Nationally, the average rise was 5.1 percent to $885 per week, or $46,000 per year, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics said.
People in Manhattan, home to Wall Street, earned three to four times more than their neighbors in other New York City boroughs and almost five times more than workers in the state of Montana.
Manhattanites in the financial activities supersector made an average of $10,156 per week, or about $528,000 per year, largely because year-end bonuses and commissions are paid in the first quarter, the bureau said in a news release.
Manhattan far outpaced the average wage in the boroughs of Queens ($831), the Bronx ($788), Brooklyn ($742) and Staten Island ($733), partially explaining its gentrification and economic discrepancies with the rest of New York City.
After Manhattan, the country's top-ranked counties in the first quarter were Fairfield, Connecticut, a New York City suburb, at $1,979, followed by Suffolk, Massachusetts, which includes Boston, at $1,659, and San Francisco at $1,639.
Four of the 10 counties with the highest average wages were in the New York area, while three others were in and around San Francisco, near the Silicon Valley high-technology corridor.
Among the 50 states and the District of Columbia, the capital Washington ranked first at $1,428 per week, followed by New York state at $1,397, Connecticut at $1,263, Massachusetts at $1,110 and New Jersey at $1,097.
The lowest weekly wages were in Montana ($600), South Dakota ($602), North Dakota ($615) and Mississippi ($616).

_______________________________________
November 20, 2007
Tuesday’s political round-up
Posted November 20th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Today’s installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn’t generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:
* A new CNN poll of New Hampshire Republicans shows Rudy Giuliani dropping fast, and Mitt Romney solidifying his lead. As of now, Romney is out in front with 33% support, followed by John McCain at 18%, and Giuliani third at 16%. In September, a CNN poll showed Romney with a one-point lead over Giuliani, 25% to 24%. In the new results, Fred Thompson has dropped all the way to sixth, behind Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul, who are running fourth and fifth, respectively.
* A new AP poll gauged which candidates are the most likable: “On the Republican side, Giuliani gets the nod, both from GOP voters and among voters overall. None of the Democratic candidates has a clear advantage among Democratic voters, with Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards running about even. But in a sheer popularity contest, pitting the most likable Democrat vs. the best-liked Republican, it would be Obama over Giuliani, 54 percent to 46 percent.”
* Hillary Clinton told an Iowa audience yesterday that the economy is in trouble and she’s the only competitive Democrat experienced enough for the job. She added that today’s economic downturn is similar to the early 1990s: “There seems to be a pattern here. It takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush.” Barack Obama, responding to the inexperience charge, said, “My understanding is she wasn’t Treasury secretary in the Clinton administration. I don’t know exactly what experience she’s claiming.”
* Obama is in New Hampshire today, unveiling his education plan. According to one report, the policy “calls for affordable preschool for every child, higher pay for better teachers and the option of more class time for students.”
* John Edwards criticized Clinton on Iran yesterday, telling an Iowa crowd, “I think if you defend the system in Washington, you’re for the status quo; if you want to continue the occupation in Iraq, you’re for the status quo, and if you’re not willing to stand up to Bush and Cheney on Iran, that’s the status quo.” Asked if he believes the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is a terrorist organization, Edwards hedged, but said he would have voted against the Kyl-Lieberman amendment

Around DC Town

From the same poll:
"If the 2008 election for president were held today, for whom would you vote for if the choice were between [see below], the Democrat, and [see below], the Republican?"
Giuliani 39 Clinton 47
Romney 38 Clinton 47
Thomspon 38 Clinton 46
McCain 41 Clinton 46
Giuliani 42 Obama 46
Romney 38 Obama 46
Thomspon 38 Obama 47
McCain 40 Obama 46
Giuliani 40 Edwards 47
Romney 38 Edwards 47
Thomspon 37 Edwards 47
McCain 41 Edwards 46
_____________________________________
by kos
Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 08:20:13 AM PST
Now don't be too shocked as the cowardly Democratic Senate caucus weighs caving on Iraq timeline -- a timeline, remember, that isn't even binding. Just a "goal".
A few days ago, we had this:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday that Democrats won't approve more money for the Iraq war this year unless President Bush agrees to begin bringing troops home.
By the end of the week, the House and Senate planned to vote on a $50 billion measure for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill would require Bush to initiate troop withdrawals immediately with the goal of ending combat by December 2008.
If Bush vetoes the bill, "then the president won't get his $50 billion," Reid, D-Nev., told reporters at a Capitol Hill news conference.
Now we have this:
Senate Democrats appear ready to omit Iraq withdrawal timelines from a supplemental spending bill in hopes of clearing in December funds for the troops — but House leaders have no intentions of following suit.
The next partial-year war funding bill, although by no means finalized, would still include the Democrats’ call for a change of mission in Iraq, but without controversial withdrawal dates — a move that is intended to draw enough Republican votes to advance legislation in the Senate.
I wrote in Newsweek:
If Reid and Pelosi stand firm they will finally fulfill one of their key 2006 campaign promises, proving they have the courage to stand tough for what they believe, while giving the vast majority of the American people what they want.
If they yield they will reinforce perceptions of Democratic weakness. Worse, they will be siding with an unpopular president and an unpopular Republican Party over an unpopular war, and their own popularity will suffer as a result.
The options to those of us outside of the Beltway are so obvious it's truly unfathomable that we are still left wondering which path the Democrats will take.
I guess Reid and the Senate caucus have chosen weakness and unpopularity. They curiously want to own this war along with the Republicans.
Pelosi and the House are still standing firm on this, and they alone could put an end to this insanity. Reid and the Senate are hopeless on this issue. They really are too weak to stand for what's right and popular. So it's up to the House to make its stand.

_______________________________________

600 billion defense budget without cost of the wars

Army's new $2.6 billion chopper can't fly in "bathing suit weather"
The Army has discovered that its new UH-72A Lakota helicopter, designed for search-and-rescue and disaster relief, has a f
The Army has discovered that its new UH-72A Lakota helicopter, designed for search-and-rescue and disaster relief, has a fatal flaw: It can't fly in hot weather. At temperatures over 80 degrees Fahrenheit, cockpit temperature soars over the upper safe limit of 104 degrees. Naturally, the Army spent $2.6 billion on the choppers, reasoning that it is unlikely ever to be required to perform missions in temperatures over 80 degrees since everyone would be at the beach.
Sadly, the UH-72A is only the latest in a spate of recent military boondoggles that have cost taxpayers billions.


The AT-42 "Tempest" Self-Propelled Combat Transport: Building on the success of its lightning-strike operations during the Iraq War, the Army sought a vehicle that could cover great distances and would not be limited by fuel requirements. The answer: an armored transport vehicle powered by an immense Kevlar sail. After four years of development, the first prototypes were tested in early 2007, and failed to perform to spec. Extensive testing revealed that the probable cause to be: "it isn't windy enough." To rectify the problem, the Army has commissioned a new vehicle, the XR-671 Mobile Propulsion Unit, a humongous fan mounted on a retrofitted Bradley fighting vehicle.TOTAL COST: $44.2 BILLION


LL-620 "Roaster" Long Range Ballistic Missile (LRBM): Designed to deliver a conventional or nuclear explosive payload, these missiles experienced an 80% failure rate. Testing revealed the probable cause to be that key missile components, including parts of the rocket body and nose-cone insulation, were made of chicken. Chicken's use as a material for advanced weaponry has been championed by a coalition of powerful farm state senators, who point to its low cost in comparison with high-tech synthetic materials such as titanium alloys or ceramics. Unfortunately, when subjected to the extreme temperatures of lift-off and reentry, chicken becomes dry and chewy. Research continues on developing a genetically modified breed of chicken with breast meat that can remain tactically moist and flavorful under the rigorous conditions of nuclear warfare.TOTAL COST: $27 BILLION


T-1 Combat Infantry Cyborg: This intelligent humanoid robotic soldier is impervious to small arms fire, and capable of conducting complex tactical warfare, relying on its own robotic intelligence to achieve missions quickly. Hailed as breakthrough technology that would free our soldiers from ever again having to risk their lives in combat, the first brigade of T-1s was ready for action in late 2005 to replace U.S. Marines fighting in Iraq. Unfortunately, before it could be deployed, the brigade was permanently sidelined after Army testers discovered that all of the cyborgs were gay.TOTAL COST: $71 BILLION


Death Star: President Bush, long an admirer and supporter of President Reagan's "Star Wars" missile defense system, insisted that the military take it to the next level, by building a "Star Wars Offense"; specifically, a fully operational Death Star. The president reasoned that if such a weapon could be built and deployed, "that would be awesome." He further argued that the technology is feasible, given that it was already created and demonstrated against the planet Alderon a long, long, time ago in a galaxy far, far away. Democrats and some Republican budget hawks have demanded an investigation into persistent allegations that the design has a known flaw, in that its defenses could be penetrated by a small group of fighters, and that a well-placed proton torpedo could set off a chain reaction that would destroy it completely. However, the project has the support of the Vice President Darth Vader, and is likely to be funded for the foreseeable future.TOTAL COST: $1.4 TRILLION

______________________________________


November 19, 2007
Friedman envisions Obama-Cheney ‘08
Posted November 19th, 2007 at 8:30 am
Share This Spotlight Permalink
Just when it seemed Thomas Friedman realized the destructive nature of Dick Cheney’s foreign-policy vision, the New York Times columnist suggested yesterday that the VP’s approach is not only healthy, but should play a role beyond 2008 if a Democrat succeeds Bush. Specifically, Friedman seems excited by the prospect of an "Obama-Cheney ticket." (Friedman goes so far as to say "they complete each other."
Even before going further, one really has to wonder what on earth Friedman is thinking giving Cheney any praise at all. His tenure as Vice President has been without redeeming value. Confronted with various challenges, Dick Cheney has managed to get every question wrong, with every decision making matters worse, all in the midst of unprecedented secrecy and legally-dubious power-grabs. He is, by any reasonable measure, the worst VP in the history of the country, and one of the most destructive political forces of his generation.
Responding to Friedman’s notion that we should keep Cheney in a position of power beyond January 2009, hilzoy suggested Friedman might next week "recommend that the Democratic nominee make the disinterred corpse of Richard Nixon Attorney General, or Typhoid Mary the head of the Centers for Disease Control, or Pol Pot the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development."
As for the specific political argument, Friedman argues:
I think a President Obama offering to go to Tehran would have a huge impact on that country and create lots of internal debate, especially if we made clear that America would be satisfied with a verifiable change of Iranian behavior.
But Mr. Obama’s stress on engaging Iran, while a useful antidote to the Bush boycott policy, is not sufficient…. Mr. Obama’s gift for outreach would be so much more effective with a Dick Cheney standing over his right shoulder, quietly pounding a baseball bat into his palm.
Glenn Greenwald had a great post on Friedman’s bizarre affinity for a belligerent foreign policy: "As Friedmans’ column this morning demonstrates, this is exactly the same mentality which our pundit class continues to embrace today: America can only succeed in the world if we run around constantly threatening countries that we will invade and incinerate them."
That’s absolutely right, but I’d add that on Iran specifically, Friedman’s recommendation is completely nonsensical.

_______________________________________

Media Issues

Washington Post: Forget Edwards -- The Dem Primary Is Nothing More Than A "Clinton-Obama Rivalry"// link //
As all you regulars know, one of this blog's running gripes is the refusal of your political media to acknowledge their own role in creating the narratives that help determine the outcome of campaigns.
Case in point -- this nugget from today's Washington Post report on the sparring between the candidates at the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner this weekend:
Edwards was the first of six presidential candidates to speak, and he tried to elbow his way into the Clinton-Obama rivalry with a populist call for Democrats to stand up against corporate interests and cleanse Washington of the corrupting influence of money and power.
According to WaPo, Edwards' speech was all about trying to "elbow his way" into the Hillary-Obama "rivalry." This makes it sound as if Campaign 2008 were less a political race than some kind of exclusive party that Hillary and Obama are throwing that Edwards is rudely trying to crash. But who decided that this race is little more than a Hillary-Obama rivalry in the first place? Why, WaPo did, of course!
After all, the same WaPo reporters who chose to describe Edwards' speech as an effort to "elbow" his way into the Hillary-Obama rivalry also chose to devote the first eight paragraphs of their piece only to what Hillary and Obama said. They chose to wait until the ninth graf to tell us what Edwards said. This despite the fact that the reporters also acknowledge that polls show that in Iowa the race remains "a competitive three-way contest."
So if by WaPo's own admission this is a competitive contest between all three candidates, why go to such extreme editorial lengths to frame it as a two-person race that Edwards is trying to "elbow" his way into?
This might not have been worth bothering with if it didn't perfectly capture a lot about what's been wrong with so much of the reporting on Campaign 2008. What's bizarre is how blatant this has become -- in cases like this no one even bothers to conceal how unabashedly manufactured the chosen narrative of the moment is.
_______________________________________

Presto! CNN Edits Pelosi's Quote To Make Her Say Dem Congress "Hasn't Done Anything"
I'm not sure anyone could outdo this one in terms of, shall we say, "creative" editing of quotes.
CNN ran a report this afternoon with the headline: "Record Anger At Congress." The network quoted Nancy Pelosi agreeing with this thesis, saying:
"I know that Congress has low approval ratings. I don't approve of Congress because we haven't done anything."
Woah -- Pelosi, the Dem leader of the House, says of the Dem Congress that "we haven't done anything?"
CNN clipped Pelosi's quote so that she was saying of the Dem Congress: "We haven't done anything." Anything at all. But Pelosi actually said that she was unhappy with Congress because we haven't done anything to end the Iraq War. Her full quote:
"I know that Congress has low approval ratings. I don't approve of Congress because we haven't done anything to end, we haven't been effective in ending the war in Iraq."
But CNN's magic wand turned this into: "We haven't done anything." That's pretty impressive.
_______________________________________

1.5 Trillion
by BarbinMD
Mon Nov 12, 2007 at 11:53:23 PM PST
When writing about the monetary cost of the war in Iraq in recent months, typing out, "$500 billion," always boggled the mind. Who knew that that wasn't the half of it...so to speak:
The economic costs to the United States of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan so far total approximately $1.5 trillion, according to a new study by congressional Democrats that estimates the conflicts' "hidden costs"-- including higher oil prices, the expense of treating wounded veterans and interest payments on the money borrowed to pay for the wars.
That amount is nearly double the $804 billion the White House has spent or requested to wage these wars through 2008, according to the Democratic staff of Congress's Joint Economic Committee. Its report, titled "The Hidden Costs of the Iraq War," estimates that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have thus far cost the average U.S. family of four more than $20,000.
And as you take a few moments to let that sink in, remember this from 2003, when then Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz:
...spent much of the hearing knocking down published estimates of the costs of war and rebuilding, saying the upper range of $95 billion was too high, and that the estimates were almost meaningless because of the variables. Moreover, he said such estimates, and speculation that postwar reconstruction costs could climb even higher, ignored the fact that Iraq is a wealthy country, with annual oil exports worth $15 billion to $20 billion. "To assume we're going to pay for it all is just wrong," he said.
Well, you know what happens when we assume.
_______________________________________

•
Energy Bill to Sacrifice Renewables By Kelpie Wilson t r u t h o u t Environment Editor
Monday 12 November 2007
Last Thursday, Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid said that they would jettison the renewable energy provisions in both the House and Senate versions of the 2007 energy bill in the interest of passing a bill before the Thanksgiving recess begins on November 17.
Republicans have been holding up action on the bill for months now, refusing to participate in conference committee meetings to reconcile the House and Senate versions. The big sticking points for Republicans have been support for renewable energy and ending billions of dollars in subsidies for oil companies. Democrats would like to use the oil subsidy money to support solar and wind power.
Representatives of the renewable energy industry were dismayed by the Democrats' abandonment. "This is basically Congress delivering an early Christmas present to the American public - and it's a lump of coal," said Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA). "We are feeling disgusted because this energy bill goes right back to maintaining the status quo."
The renewable energy provisions in the bill come in two forms: a Renewable Electricity Standard that requires utilities to supply 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources like solar and wind, and tax provisions, including a production tax credit for wind power and a tax credit to encourage investment in solar power equipment.
While the Renewable Electricity Standard would be a new federal program (31 states already have some kind of renewable mandate), the tax incentives for solar and wind would continue programs already in place. Losing these tax breaks would be devastating to the renewable energy industry, said solar lobbyist Scott Sklar of the Stella Group: "It will cause sales and investment to implode."
By giving up on renewable energy, lawmakers are losing an opportunity to increase energy security and strengthen the economy. Last week the American Solar Energy Society released a report on the economic benefits of investment in renewable energy, finding that major investments in renewables and energy efficiency retrofits could produce 40 million jobs and generate $4.5 trillion in US revenue by 2030.
_______________________________________

The Way It Is

Books of The Times
Division of the U.S. Didn’t Occur Overnight

THE SECOND CIVIL WAR
How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America
By Ronald Brownstein
'The Second Civil War,' by Ronald Brownstein: Extreme Politics (November 11, 2007)

Published: November 13, 2007
During President George W. Bush’s first term, one of his senior political advisers summed up the prevailing philosophy at the White House like this: "This is not designed to be a 55 percent presidency," he said. "This is designed to be a presidency that moves as much as possible of what we believe into law while holding 50 plus one of the country and the Congress." Bold ideas that could mobilize his conservative Republican base were prized over efforts to convince independent voters in the center; sharp divisions over the administration’s policies were regarded as proof of Mr. Bush’s decisiveness and willingness to challenge conventional thinking.

As the veteran political reporter Ronald Brownstein observes in his timely and compelling new book, this is very much how President Bush has governed: "In his congressional strategy he consistently demonstrated that he would rather pass legislation as close as possible to his preferences on a virtually party-line basis than make concessions to reduce political tensions or broaden his support among Democrats." And in his dealings with both Congress and other nations before the invasion of Iraq, Mr. Brownstein goes on, Mr. Bush "sought not to construct a consensus for a common direction on Iraq, but rather to obtain acquiescence for the undeviating direction he had charted in his own mind."
Mr. Bush’s failure to build a broad coalition of public support would contribute to his precipitous slide in public opinion, as the war bogged down; and his administration’s highly partisan approach to governing would fuel efforts on the part of liberal activists to push the Democratic Party into a more confrontational, adversarial stance as well. Indeed, as Mr. Brownstein notes in "The Second Civil War," America has entered what Ken Mehlman, the campaign manager for Mr. Bush in 2004, calls an era of "hyperpartisanship."
"The ideological differences between the parties are as great as at any time in the past century," Mr. Brownstein writes. "But the country is split almost exactly in half between the two sides. Deeply and closely divided is an unprecedented and explosive combination."
While voters for the losing side always feel unrepresented when the other party wins unified control over the government, he says, they used to be able to look to heretics in the majority coalition who championed an approximation of their views, but with waning numbers of these mavericks — i.e., liberal Republicans or conservative Democrats, who moderated their parties’ stands — this option is increasingly unavailable. Moreover, as activists on both sides have come to exert more leverage on their parties, bipartisan cooperation is scorned, and big issues requiring comprehensive solutions (like health care and immigration reform) are sidelined in the standoff.
Although many of these developments might seem obvious to anyone who follows politics, Mr. Brownstein — a longtime political correspondent and columnist for The Los Angeles Times, and now political director of Atlantic Media Company — does a highly nuanced job of dissecting this alarming phenomenon, while eloquently situating it within a historical context and examining its palpable consequences for the country at large.
Mr. Brownstein contrasts the current age of "hyperpartisanship" with the "age of bargaining," during which Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson (at least until his landslide victory in 1964) worked and negotiated, usually by necessity, with opponents on the other side of the political aisle. While this system tended to make for incremental, rather than revolutionary, reform, Mr. Brownstein says, "it compelled political leaders who held contrasting views and represented differing constituencies to talk and listen to each other." It could also lead to big, overarching policy making: most notably, a bipartisan strategy for resisting the Soviet Union and contesting the cold war.
During what Mr. Brownstein calls "the age of Transition," Nixon warred with the Democrats over foreign policy but cooperated with them on many domestic issues, leading to an extension of the Voting Rights Act, the end of the draft, the 18-year-old vote, the Consumer Product Safety Act and a variety of environmental legislation. Reagan’s presidency, he says, "unleashed ideological energies that widened the distance between the parties and escalated the conflicts between them."
But at the same time, he adds, Reagan’s "political and personal tendencies were integrative, not divisive," and he "mostly sought not to deepen ideological or partisan differences but to transcend them in an appeal to shared assumptions" about "individualism at home and American exceptionalism in the world."
As for President Bill Clinton, Mr. Brownstein credits him with trying to rebuild a political majority for the Democratic Party by synthesizing priorities from the left and right and integrating ideas from a broad spectrum of thinkers and interests. But if Mr. Clinton managed some important centrist achievements — including a crime bill, the passage of Nafta and welfare reform — he also personally became (especially in the wake of the Monica Lewinsky scandal) a flash point for controversy, which "accelerated the trend toward a political alignment that divided the nation more along lines of culture than class."
In fact, Mr. Brownstein argues that the House vote to impeach Mr. Clinton — marked by vociferous partisan confrontation, and the explicit rejection of any compromise (like censure) that might have united the parties and the country — may well signify "the final, full transition into the political era" of hyperpartisanship in which we now live
In the course of this book Mr. Brownstein astutely examines the many factors that contributed to this development: the emergence in the ’60s and ’70s of interest groups on both the left and right (representing everything from women’s and gay rights to anti-abortion and anti-gun-control interests), which would exert growing influence on Washington; the abandonment of the seniority principle in Congress, which meant, in Mr. Brownstein’s words, that "everyone was judged every day on how often they voted with their party, how much money they raised for their colleagues, and how reliably they stood with their ‘team’ in rhetorical firefights against the other side"; the increasing homogenization within each of the parties, which saw a widening gap between Republicans and Democrats; and the growing partisanship of the media with the ascendance of talk radio, Internet blogs and cable news channels like Fox News.

In describing the history of partisanship in this country Mr. Brownstein writes with both an authoritative understanding of the political dynamics in Washington and a plain-spoken common sense. He points out the practical dangers of hyperpartisanship — how it has prevented America’s leaders from agreeing on everything from a comprehensive immigration plan to a strategy for reducing the country’s dependence on foreign oil to a long-term plan for securing Social Security. And he reminds us that while the country itself is not more divided than it has been in the past (especially when compared, say, with the 1960s or the 1860s), the nation’s current political system accentuates differences instead of bridging them.
In contemplating the possibility of building a political system that would be "less confrontational and more productive than today’s," Mr. Brownstein explores a host of suggestions, including term limits for Supreme Court justices, the opening of all party primaries to independents, and the formation of a viable third party. Some of these suggestions may seem unrealistic, given the current state of politics. But the low approval rates for both the Bush White House and the Democratic-controlled Congress, combined with a growing conviction that the country is now off-track (an ABC News/Washington Post poll this month showed that 74 percent of Americans say the country is headed in the wrong direction), attest to the public’s dissatisfaction with legislative gridlock and poisonous fights over national security, social issues and Supreme Court appointments.
In the long term, Mr. Brownstein writes toward the end of this sobering book, "the party that seeks to encompass and harmonize the widest range of interests and perspectives is the one most likely to thrive. The overriding lesson for both parties from the Bush attempt to profit from polarization is that there remains no way to achieve lasting political power in a nation as diverse as America without assembling a broad coalition that locks arms to produce meaningful progress against the country’s problems."