the daily democrat

mod_dbrss2 AJAX RSS Reader poweredbysimplepie
The Daily Democrat
Home
News
Blog
Contact Us
Search
News Flash
  • 15:55 - 10.03.2010 News >> Latest

     Kucinich, raging egomaniac or idiot (probably not the latter)Michael Tomasky Last fall, Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos took the very wrong-headed (to me) position that the House's health bill was so bad people should vote against it. I'm happy to see he's now come around to a more sober view, which can't alas be said of Dennis Kucinich, the left-wing Ohio congressman. He voted against the bill last fall and recently said he'd vote against it again even if he were the deciding vote.Last night on teevee, Markos said that if he helps kill reform, Kucinich should face a primary. HuffPo:
    In an appearance on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Moulitsas conveyed pointed frustration with the Ohio Democrat's pledge to oppose reform on grounds that it doesn't go far enough. He said Kucinich was practicing a "very Ralph Nader-esque approach" to politics. "The fact is this is a good first step and he is elected not to run for president, which he seems to do every four years," he said. "[Kucinich] is not elected to grandstand and to give us this ideal utopian society. He is elected to represent the people of his district and he is not representing the uninsured constituents in his district by pretending to take the high ground here."Pressed by fill-in host Lawrence O'Donnell as to whether a Kucinich would get a Democratic challenger for his seat if he didn't support health care legislation -- and in the process kill it -- Moulitsas replied, "Yeah, absolutely." "What he is doing is undermining this reform," he added. "He is making common cause with Republicans. And I think that is a perfect excuse and a rational one for a primary challenge."The boy mayor has been around politics a long time. There's no way he can honestly believe…

    Read more...
  • 11:48 - 10.03.2010 News >> Latest

     Immigrants to Democrats: 'Wake up! Do something!' Lindsey Graham to Obama: 'Time to step it up'"In 2008, many of our community members voted for change. ... We've been waiting, waiting, waiting. But since then, our president, our Congress members have been in a deep sleep. So now we're saying, 'We can't take it anymore! Wake up! Do something!'"Read Article

    Read more...
  • 11:37 - 10.03.2010 News >> Latest

     US drone strikes in Pakistan tribal areas boost support for Taleban

    Read more...
  • 09:47 - 10.03.2010 News >> Latest

         

    Read more...
  • 09:32 - 10.03.2010 News >> Latest

     Massa: Groping, tickling not 'sexual'Glenn Beck, left, (AP photo). Eric Massa (Getty Images photo).During his appearance on "The Glenn Beck Program," former U.S. Rep. Eric Massa defended himself and denied allegations that he had sexually groped a staff member. Read Article   

    Read more...
  • 09:00 - 10.03.2010 News >> Latest

     Karl Rove says President Obama is "undisciplined, unengaged, aloof and focused on the wrong things." Read Article    

    Read more...
  • 07:27 - 10.03.2010 News >> Latest

    A weakling or a radical?Gerson: The squandered moment on health reform cost Obama his chance to unify.Read Article

    Read more...
  • 07:16 - 10.03.2010 News >> Latest

     AFP / Getty ImagesAmerican dubbed 'Jihad Jane' is indictedBy Richard A. SerranoColleen R. LaRose, 46, of Pennsylvania is accused of using the Internet to recruit attackers and assist Muslim terrorist operations in Europe and Asia. Read Article

    Read more...
  • 07:05 - 10.03.2010 News >> Latest

      Mark Steel: Obama, throw away the kid gloves A third of American health employees are in marketing Read Article

    Read more...
  • 06:51 - 10.03.2010 News >> Latest

     US could leave Afghanistan ahead of 2011 deadline Withdrawal could start before the July 2011 deadline set by the President, Defence Secretary Robert Gates hints. Read Article   

    Read more...
Syndicate
"50,000 troops will be pulled out of the country this summer"

 

America to withdraw troops in wake of Iraq vote

America's top general in Iraq has said 50,000 troops will be pulled out of the country this summer following the smooth running of elections at the weekend.

Two Iraqi women display their inked fingers
Two Iraqi women display their inked fingers after casting their vote in the parliamentary elections in Baghdad, Iraq, Sunday, March 7, 2010. Photo: AP

 

General Ray Odierno, the commanding officer of US forces, said he would push ahead with plans to reduce numbers by the end of August and see a complete pull-out by the end of next year.

"As I look at it today, we think we're on track to be down to 50,000," he said. "There's nothing today that tells us that we don't think the Iraqis will be able to form this government in a peaceful way."

Both Iraqi and US leaders have been relieved at the relatively calm atmosphere in Iraq's major cities before and during the election. The wave of bombings which killed 38 people on polling day on Sunday and several dozen more in the weeks beforehand was not as bad as feared.

Early indications on Monday suggested a close race between the two leading coalitions and the potential for a long stand-off as the winner tries to negotiate with smaller parties to form a government.

But Washington will be heartened at an apparently poorer showing for an Islamist grouping, many of whose members have close ties to Iran and to Shia militias, which had also been expected to compete for the top place.

The Independent High Electoral Commission last night said turnout was 62 per cent, less than the previous general election in 2005 but better than many had expected after years of sectarian street warfare in major cities.

Election officials reported the State of Law coalition of Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister and pre-election favourite, was ahead in half the country's provinces. Mr Maliki's grouping is largely Shia and although it claims to be cross-sectarian has its power-base in the Shia southern areas.

A victory for either Mr Maliki or the Iraqiya nationalist grouping of former prime minister Ayad Allawi would be regarded as acceptable by the United States.

Iraqiya is expected to dominate the votes of Sunni regions, where turnout was said to be particularly high.

The Shia Islamists of the Iraqi National Alliance were expected to do well in poor areas such as Baghdad's two-million strong, impoverished Sadr city.

This is the power base of the Mahdi army of Moqtada al-Sadr, who has said he is committed to the electoral process but whose candidates include some accused of criminal activity.

Hakim Fadily, once accused of using his position as deputy health minister to carry out killings of Sunni patients and to use ambulances to run guns, said the Mahdis would be willing to take up arms again if necessary.

"I don't expect American troops to leave Iraq," he said. "The American approach is to impose themselves by force and humiliate the Iraqi people."

General Odierno has admitted he has contingency plans to keep troops in place if the situation deteriorates.

Another Shia candidate, Raad Mukhlis, called on America to help the formation of a new government.

"I hope and pray the Americans don't pull out completely," he said. "We didn't invite them to come to our country but since they are here we need them to rebuild it – build a new democracy, not just an election."

General Odierno said that the scores of mortar rounds thought to have been fired at Baghdad on Sunday were probably harmless "bottle bombs".

Mr Allawi's group have complained of "irregularities" at polling stations.

But a spokesman for the United Nations said: "We have an inclination to say that these elections were well organised."

 

 

 

 
Geo. Will saves SCOTUS the trouble of the 2nd Amendment.

 

How the Constitution, filtered by the high court, affects guns

By George F. Will
Sunday, March 7, 2010

It is said, more frequently than precisely, that the reasons the Supreme Court gives for doing whatever it does are as important as what it does. Actually, the court's reasons are what it does. Hence, the interest in the case the Supreme Court considered last week.

It probably will result in a routine ruling that extends a 2008 decision and renders dubious many state and local gun-control laws. What could -- but, judging from the justices' remarks during oral argument, probably will not -- make the ruling momentous would be the court deciding that the two ordinances at issue violate the 14th Amendment's "privileges or immunities" clause. Liberals and conservatives submitted briefs arguing, correctly, that this clause was intended to be a scythe for slicing through thickets of state and local laws abridging fundamental liberties.

The Second Amendment says: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Until 2008, the court had never clarified whether the prefatory clause makes this right conditional: Does the amendment protect an individual's right to own firearms, or does it protect that right only in connection with a state's right to organize a militia?

In 2008, the court struck down a D.C. law that effectively banned possession of handguns even in an owner's home -- it banned all guns not kept at businesses, or disassembled or disabled by trigger locks. The court held, 5 to 4, that the Second Amendment protects individuals' rights.

But the court answered only the question then posed, which concerned the federal enclave of the District of Columbia. Left unanswered was whether the amendment protects that right against severe restrictions by state and local laws.

The oral argument concerned ordinances in Chicago and suburban Oak Park that are indistinguishable from the D.C. law. The court probably will overturn those ordinances by holding that another part of the 14th Amendment -- the guarantee that no state shall deny liberty "without due process of law" -- "incorporates" the Second Amendment. The justices evinced scant interest Tuesday in resurrecting the "privileges or immunities" clause by revisiting an incoherent decision rendered in 1873.

To the drafters of the 14th Amendment, the phrase "privileges or immunities" was synonymous with "basic civil rights." But in 1873, the court held that only some of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights restrict states by being "incorporated" into the 14th Amendment's "due process" clause.

Since 1897, the court has held, with no discernible principle, that some rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are sufficiently fundamental to be "incorporated" but others are not. This doctrine bears the oxymoronic name "substantive due process." Substance is what process questions are not about.

If the court now "incorporates" the Second Amendment right via the "due process" guarantee, that will be progress because it will enlarge the sphere of protected liberty. And even Justice Antonin Scalia, who recognizes that "substantive due process" is intellectual applesauce, thinks it is too late to repudiate 137 years of the stuff. Still, three points argue for using the "privileges or immunities" scythe against the two gun ordinances.

First, protecting the individual's right to keep and bear arms for self-defense was frequently mentioned by those who drafted and ratified the 14th Amendment, the purpose of which was to protect former slaves and their advocates from being disarmed by state and local governments determined to assault their security and limit their autonomy.

Second, the central tenet of American political philosophy is that government is instituted not to bestow rights but to protect preexisting rights, aka natural rights -- those essential to the flourishing of our natures. In its 2008 decision, the court affirmed that the Second Amendment did not grant a right to keep and bear arms, it "codified a pre-existing right."

Third, "privileges or immunities" are all those rights that, at the time the 14th Amendment was ratified, were understood to be central to Americans' enjoyment of the blessings of liberty.

Liberals might hope and conservatives might fear that a revivified "privileges or immunities" clause wielded by liberal justices would breed many new "positive rights" -- to welfare, health care, etc. But conservatives know that "substantive due process" already has such a pernicious potential. And they believe that if -- a huge caveat -- it remained tethered to the intent of its 19th-century authors, the "privileges or immunities" clause would be useful protection against the statism of the states.

 

 

 

 

 
"reconciliation insight"

 

More reconciliation insight

From yesterday's NYT, this chart about the use of reconciliation since 1980 is extremely useful and I recommend it highly.

*This chart says it's been used 15 times since 1980.

* Republicans have instigated 9.5 of those times, a clear majority (I'd say 10 times -- the authors here describe the 2001 Senate as divided, which is true because it changed control halfway through, but the bill in question -- Bush's first round of tax cuts -- was obviously a Republican bill, and reconciliation in that case was obviously the strategy of Republicans. So R's instigated this procedure they're now calling unfair two-thirds of the time.

*Pace Kent Conrad (see yesterday's post), the procedure has generally been invoked to reduce the deficit -- 12 out of 15 times. The three exceptions? All led by Republicans, all relating to Bush tax cuts that increased the deficit.

So remember, the important point is this: it's not just that Republicans have used the procedure, it's that they used it to pass measures that everyone knew would increase the deficit because they didn't even gesture toward paying for the tax cuts. So they're being double-hypocrites now.

And before 50 of you write posts about how healthcare reform is going to blow the deficit wide open: yes, deficit reduction will depend to some extent on the fiscal prudence of future congresses, which is risky (it's not a total joke, but it is a risk). That said, the CBO has found that the Senate bill will cut the deficit. That's the estimate we rely on. If you have a beef with that, take it to the CBO, not me.

 

 

 

 
James Cameron's anti-Americanism backfires.

 

Kathryn Bigelow celebrates after winning best director during the 82nd Academy Awards in Hollywood 

Patriotism triumphs over anti-Americanism

Nile Gardiner explains why he's glad The Hurt Locker won the Oscar for Best Picture over Avatar.

Read Article

 

 

 

 

 
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>

Results 29 - 32 of 9468
Latest News

© 2010 The Daily Democrat - created by JiaWebDesign web design and development