Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 26,111
Number of posts: 26,111
- 2015 (5)
- 2014 (79)
- 2013 (94)
- 2012 (178)
- 2011 (1)
- December (1)
- Older Archives
Former President Bill Clinton tells Democrats to back Crist with big turnout
Former Florida Governor Charlie Crist, who is now running as a Democrat in this year’s governor’s race, stands alongside former President Bill Clinton at Crist's campaign rally in downtown Miami. Clinton and Crist didn’t talk about jobs or the economy as much as Scott, but Clinton made sure to talk about issues that Gov. Rick Scott shies away from: expanding Medicaid and approving a minimum-wage increase — bread and butter Democratic issues
DEMOCRATIC DUO: Former Florida Governor Charlie Crist, who is now running as a Democrat in this year’s governor’s race, stands alongside former President Bill Clinton at Crist's campaign rally in downtown Miami. Clinton and Crist didn’t talk about jobs or the economy as much as Scott, but Clinton made sure to talk about issues that Gov. Rick Scott shies away from: expanding Medicaid and approving a minimum-wage increase — bread and butter Democratic issues ANGEL VALENTIN / GETTY IMAGES
BY MARC CAPUTO
Bill Clinton sounded worried.
“Typically in nonpresidential years, Republicans vote better than Democrats do,” the former president said Friday night at a Miami campaign rally for Charlie Crist. “And we’re not going to let that happen, are we?”
The crowd of several hundred shouted back a loud no.
Clinton’s concern cropped up time and again in his 25-minute speech designed to vouch for the Democratic bonafides of Crist and fire up the faithful so that Florida Democrats can win their first governor’s race since 1994.
This year, Democrats are trying in the most-unorthodox of ways — with a former Republican governor who was an independent before becoming a Democrat. Crist faces the weakest incumbent in years, Gov. Rick Scott, whose poll numbers have been poor since the political newcomer barely won office in 2010.
But after a $24 million ad campaign — most of it negative and trained on Crist — the race is close. A Tampa Bay Times poll this week found Scott ahead by 5 percentage points, but a SurveyUSA poll last week indicated Crist was up by 2 percentage points.
Posted by flpoljunkie | Sat Sep 6, 2014, 08:51 AM (13 replies)
Obama Shouldn’t Bomb ISIS in Syria
We have no strategy for intervening there, and no reason to think it will work.
By Fred Kaplan
President Barack Obama addresses the nation from the State Dining Room of the White House on Aug. 7, 2014.
Photo by Mike Theiler/Getty Images
Let’s hope that President Obama does not bomb ISIS inside Syria—unless, maybe, the airstrikes are coordinated with some other country’s troops on the ground. That’s what happened in northern Iraq last week, when U.S. airstrikes paved the way for a mix of Iraqi special forces, Shiite militias, and Kurdish peshmerga fighters to push ISIS away from the Mosul Dam. But that’s not likely to happen in Syria.
It’s not likely to happen for two reasons, both lamentable. First, there are no ground forces inside Syria that can both repel ISIS and serve as palatable American allies. Second, the Obama administration and the neighboring Middle Eastern countries appear to have no strategy of what an intervention in Syria might look like or of what Syrian politics should look like in its aftermath.
That is a particular shame, since the United States and just about every country in the region could form a very potent alliance against ISIS. They all hate and fear the al-Qaida offshoot that calls itself the Islamic State. They all share an interest in seeing the group pummeled. But in many of these countries, domestic politics or conflicting interests on other matters impede such an alliance from forming.
A strange alliance—which could include the United States, Iran, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Israel, and Saudi Arabia—is at least conceptually feasible in Iraq, assuming its new prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, forms a government that seems inclusive and responsive to Shiite and Sunni leaders. If Abadi manages this feat (and the bloody sectarian violence in recent days dampens its prospects), this hypothetical alliance—which includes Sunni and Shiite nations, among others—would be fighting not just against ISIS but also for a stable and potentially amenable Iraq.
Posted by flpoljunkie | Mon Sep 1, 2014, 04:56 PM (0 replies)
September 01, 2014
Citizens United Case Helped Elect More Republicans
Washington Post: "The 2010 Supreme Court decision that helped usher in a new era of political spending gave Republicans a measurable advantage on Election Day, according to a new study."
"The advantage isn't large, but it is statistically significant: The researchers found the ruling, in Citizens United v. FEC, was associated with a six percentage-point increase in the likelihood that a Republican candidate would win a state legislative race."
"And in six of the most affected states -- Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio and Tennessee -- the probability that a Republican would be elected to a state legislative seat increased by 10 percentage points or more. In five other states -- Colorado, Iowa, Texas, Wisconsin and Wyoming -- Republican candidates were seven percentage points more likely to win."
Posted by flpoljunkie | Mon Sep 1, 2014, 12:41 PM (2 replies)
The DNC Knows Everything About You
Learning from the Obama presidential campaigns, the Democrats are rolling out a sophisticated national ground game they hope will get ‘souls to the polls.’
With fewer than 75 days left until Election Day, Democrats across the country are feverishly moving from planning to implementing a vast, multilayered turnout operation that they hope will make the 2014 mid-term elections look more like a victorious Obama presidential year and less like the sort of mid-term wipeout that cost them the House majority in 2010.
It won’t be easy. Of the 21 Senate seats Democrats are defending, six are Red states that Mitt Romney easily carried in 2012. Even in Democratic and swing states, President Obama’s dismal approval ratings are a drag on any Democrat in a competitive race.
But as the cliché goes, the only poll that matters is the one on Election Day, and Democrats are focusing an unprecedented amount of resources on turning their voters out on November 4th. The data-driven, Obama campaign-inspired approach is designed to not only persuade likely voters to pick the Democrat in their elections, but also to vastly expand the pool of Democratic votes in those elections by finding, registering and turning out people who would probably vote for a Democrat, if they bothered to vote at all.
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is calling their $60 million turnout operation “the Bannock Street Project.” The Democratic National Committee calls theirs the Voter Expansion Project. DuBose Porter, the chairman of the Democratic Party of Georgia where the DSCC and DNC are both invested and where Democrats must win to keep their Senate majority, has his own term for getting out the vote in 2014.
Posted by flpoljunkie | Fri Aug 22, 2014, 10:30 AM (5 replies)
Obama’s Next Move
The president just described ISIS as a threat to civilization. Now he must back up those words with action.
By Fred Kaplan
President Obama delivers a statement from Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, on Aug. 20, 2014.
Photo by Kevin Lamarque/Reuters
With his speech on Wednesday condemning ISIS in newly stark, determined language, President Obama now needs to step up his military campaign in equally dramatic fashion.
That does not—and should not—mean sending American ground troops or taking steps that give even the whiff of an American-led war.
If the jihadists of ISIS are as dangerous as Obama says they are (and the evidence suggests they are), then it’s time to plow through diplomatic niceties and pursue the common interests of nations with which we otherwise might not get along. Yes, it’s politically awkward, to say the least, for Obama to make common cause, even on this one issue, with Assad (a monster whom he once said “must go”) and the mullahs of Tehran (most of whom regard America as the “great Satan”). But in World War II, Roosevelt and Churchill joined with Stalin to defeat Hitler—and, if they hadn’t, Hitler would have won.
The fighters of ISIS aren’t ragtag hooligans, but they’re not Hitler’s Panzer Corps, they’re not Saddam’s Republican Guards, they’re not even the Taliban. The fight isn’t a cakewalk, but it doesn’t have to be a huge struggle, if the Western politicians can get over their complexes about working with certain bad people in order to defeat even worse people.
more at above link...
Posted by flpoljunkie | Fri Aug 22, 2014, 10:17 AM (2 replies)
Why Rick Perry Will Be Convicted
by James Moore
If the court of public opinion has an impact on a jury's decisions, Texas Governor Rick Perry may have a chance of beating his indictments. While poorly informed Democrats like Obama advisor David Axelrod call the indictments "sketchy," Perry's advisors have him concentrating on defending his constitutional authority to exercise the line item budget veto.
Except that's not what this case is about.
Perry is accused of using his veto authority to coerce a publicly elected official into leaving office. And when the veto threat, and later the actual exercise of the veto didn't work, he may have tried a bit of bribery, which is why he is facing criminal charges.
Not because he exercised his constitutional veto authority.
Some of the media appear to have adopted the Perry narrative that he wanted to get rid of an irresponsible Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg because she had been arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. Lehmberg, whose blood alcohol level was about three times above legal limits, was recorded on video as drunk and belligerent during booking. Perry is arguing he eliminated the $7.5 million dollar budget that Lehmberg managed for the Public Integrity Unit (PIU) because she was no longer responsible enough to run the operation.
But the governor probably had another motive.
The PIU had been investigating the Cancer Research and Prevention Institute (CPRIT), a $3 billion dollar taxpayer funded project that awarded research and investment grants to startups targeting cancer cures. The entire scientific review team, including Nobel Laureate scientists, resigned because they said millions were handed out through political favoritism. Investigations by Texas newspapers indicated much of the money was ending up in projects proposed by campaign donors and supporters of Governor Perry. In fact, one of the executives of CPRIT was indicted in the PIU investigation for awarding an $11 million dollar grant to a company without the proposal undergoing any type of review.
Perry might have been the next target.
Posted by flpoljunkie | Tue Aug 19, 2014, 02:49 PM (15 replies)
'Thank God for the Saudis': ISIS, Iraq, and the Lessons of Blowback
U.S lawmakers encouraged officials in Riyadh to arm Syrian rebels. Now that strategy may have created a monster in the Middle East.
JUN 23 2014, 11:40 AM ET
ISIS fighters at a checkpoint in the northern Iraq city of Mosul (Reuters)
“Thank God for the Saudis and Prince Bandar,” John McCain told CNN’s Candy Crowley in January 2014. “Thank God for the Saudis and Prince Bandar, and for our Qatari friends,” the senator said once again a month later, at the Munich Security Conference.
McCain was praising Prince Bandar bin Sultan, then the head of Saudi Arabia’s intelligence services and a former ambassador to the United States, for supporting forces fighting Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria. McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham had previously met with Bandar to encourage the Saudis to arm Syrian rebel forces.
But shortly after McCain’s Munich comments, Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah relieved Bandar of his Syrian covert-action portfolio, which was then transferred to Saudi Interior Minister Prince Mohammed bin Nayef. By mid-April, just two weeks after President Obama met with King Abdullah on March 28, Bandar had also been removed from his position as head of Saudi intelligence—according to official government statements, at “his own request.” Sources close to the royal court told me that, in fact, the king fired Bandar over his handling of the kingdom’s Syria policy and other simmering tensions, after initially refusing to accept Bandar’s offers to resign. (Bandar retains his title as secretary-general of the king’s National Security Council.)
The Free Syrian Army (FSA), the “moderate” armed opposition in the country, receives a lot of attention. But two of the most successful factions fighting Assad’s forces are Islamist extremist groups: Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the latter of which is now amassing territory in Iraq and threatening to further destabilize the entire region. And that success is in part due to the support they have received from two Persian Gulf countries: Qatar and Saudi Arabia.
Posted by flpoljunkie | Tue Aug 19, 2014, 02:09 PM (2 replies)
Nobody Died and Made Rick Perry King
Call it a liberal vendetta all you want. We still have a separation of powers.
By JASON STANFORD
August 18, 2014
It this point it might be helpful for the Washington punditry to take a deep cleansing breath, because virtually nothing they’ve heard from Perry and his legal team actually addresses the charges.
Perry can absolutely veto whatever he wants. That’s not the issue. And if he thinks this is a liberal vendetta, then Perry should explain why a Republican judge appointed Michael McCrum special prosecutor. McCrum once served in the George H.W. Bush administration, and in 2009, Sen. John Cornyn, who said the indictments smacked of prosecutorial overreach, nominated McCrum to be a federal prosecutor again in the Western District. For a Democratic conspiracy, there sure are a lot of Republicans in key roles.
But just for a second, forget Lehmberg and her troubles with booze. Forget that the only thing Texas Democrats have won since 1994 is church bingo. If you focus on the facts, you begin to realize that Perry might face some legal peril.
First, Lehmberg was investigating a publicly funded cancer research agency and had indicted one official for improperly directing an $11 million research grant to a company owned by people who had given $440,000 to the campaigns of Perry and Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst.
more at link...
Posted by flpoljunkie | Tue Aug 19, 2014, 02:05 PM (1 replies)
*Who is Will Marshall?
Will Marshall is one of the founders of the New Democrat movement, which aims to steer the US Democratic Party toward a more centrist orientation. Since its founding in 1989, he has been president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank affiliated with the Democratic Leadership Council.
He recently served on the board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, an organization chaired by Joe Lieberman and John McCain designed to build bipartisan support for the invasion of Iraq. Marshall also signed, at the outset of the war, a letter issued by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) expressing support for the invasion. Marshall signed a similar letter sent to President Bush put out by the Social Democrats USA on Feb. 25, 2003, just before the invasion. The SDUSA letter urged Bush to commit to "maintaining substantial U.S. military forces in Iraq for as long as may be required to ensure a stable, representative regime is in place and functioning."
THE FRIDAY COVER
Can Hillary Fix Obama’s Mess?
By WILL MARSHALL August 14, 2014
On Barack Obama’s watch, Democrats have defined their international outlook largely in reactive and negative terms. The president has focused on fixing his predecessor’s mistakes, leaving unclear what positive role he envisions for America in the 21st century. “Don’t Do Stupid Stuff” may be sound advice for college-bound kids, but it’s not a foreign policy doctrine.
Where George W. Bush reached too quickly for the blunt instrument of military force, Obama stresses its limited utility for solving complex political problems. Bush’s “Freedom Agenda” had a utopian and triumphalist ring; Obama eschews moralizing and puts human rights and democracy on the diplomatic backburner. Bush’s unilateralism strained ties with key U.S. allies, Obama is only too happy to lead from behind and shift responsibility for solving global problems to multilateral coalitions.
And, given the economic mess he inherited, and the need to repair the domestic foundations of U.S. strength, it’s understandable that Obama has sought to limit America’s exposure to foreign conflicts.
Six years into his tenure, however, the world doesn’t seem to be cooperating with Obama’s policy of risk-averse retrenchment. Russia has reverted to its bad old ways, resurrecting a Soviet-style police state and menacing its neighbors. Europe’s inability to respond effectively has forced Obama to put America back in the business of checking Moscow’s aggression. Washington also is getting sucked back into Iraq, dashing the president’s hopes of extricating the United States from a Middle East convulsed by jihadist and sectarian violence.
much more from this neocon 'progressive...'
Posted by flpoljunkie | Fri Aug 15, 2014, 03:42 PM (22 replies)
Fareed Zakaria: The fantasy of Middle Eastern moderates
Syrians gather at the site of a reported barrel-bomb attack by government forces on August 13, 2014, in the rebel-held Qadi Askar neighbourhood in Aleppo. More than 170,000 people have been killed in Syria since the conflict began there in March 2011. (Zein Al-Rifai/AFP/Getty Images)
By Fareed Zakaria
August 14 at 8:52 PM
Hillary Clinton was expressing what has become Washington’s new conventional wisdom when she implied, in her interview with Jeffrey Goldberg in the Atlantic, that “moderates” might have prevented the rise of the Islamic State. In fact, the United States has provided massive and sustained aid to the moderates in the region.
Remember, the Islamic State, formerly known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, was created in Iraq and grew out of that country’s internal dynamics. Over the past decade, the United States helped organize Iraq’s “moderates” — the Shiite-dominated government — giving them tens of billions of dollars in aid and supplying and training their army. But, it turned out, the moderates weren’t that moderate. As they became authoritarian and sectarian, Sunni opposition movements grew and jihadi opposition groups such as ISIS gained tacit or active support. This has been a familiar pattern throughout the region.
For decades, U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East has been to support “moderates.” The problem is that there are actually very few of them. The Arab world is going through a bitter, sectarian struggle that is “carrying the Islamic world back to the Dark Ages,” said Turkish President Abdullah Gul. In these circumstances, moderates either become extremists or they lose out in the brutal power struggles of the day. Look at Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya and the Palestinian territories.
In an excellent essay for The Post, George Washington University professor Marc Lynch cites careful historical studies that demonstrate that in a chaotic, violent civil war such as Syria’s — with many outside players funding their favorite groups — U.S. intervention would have had little effect other than to extend and exacerbate the conflict. “Had the plan to arm Syria’s rebels been adopted back in 2012,” Lynch writes, “the most likely scenario is that the war would still be raging and look much as it does today, except that the United States would be far more intimately and deeply involved.”
Asserting that the moderates in Syria could win is not tough foreign policy talk, it is a naive fantasy with dangerous consequences.
Posted by flpoljunkie | Fri Aug 15, 2014, 08:25 AM (0 replies)