You know Dean's first. 

Just some thoughts regarding the illegality of the NSA warrantless wiretapping program raised by Phil and Reed yesterday.

I would very much like to see some Congressional hearings into the constitutionality and legality of this program. However, consider that 1) the leadership on the Intelligence Committees of both houses were briefed repeatedly on this program before it was publicized more than 4 years after its inception; 2) the program has ended following Judge Taylor’s decision last summer; 3) Judge Taylor’s decision is stayed pending appeal; and 4) The process of judicial review alone signals that there is a legal controversy surrounding this program, meaning there are arguments for and against its legality, based on statutory interpretation. Adopting a policy decision based on statutory interpretation is in no way illegal, regardless of whether the policy is found to be illegal, assuming the decision is rationally based on colorable legal claims.

Contrast this with Nixon, who ordered domestic break ins and wiretaps with no national security interests at stake, and Clinton who admitted perjuring himself. A Congress contemplating articles of impeachment, particularly after the Clinton impeachment fiasco, will have to justify its actions to voters in light of these considerations.

I just want to emphasize how crucial hearings are. They were for Nixon and Clinton. We should make certain that impeachment articles are based on demonstrable, meritorious legal claims, not emotion.

speaking of Texas --

there's  Harlingen, TX:

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/11210901/detail.html?rss=bos&psp=news

BOSTON -- State Department of Social Service workers were scheduled to head to the airport Friday to try to deal with the controversy sparked by a federal raid on undocumented workers in New Bedford this week.

NewsCenter 5's Gail Huff reported that 150 immigrants who were working at the Michael Bianco Inc., leather factory were sent to a detention center in Texas, but now the state is going to send social workers there looking for pregnant women, minors and some single mothers -- most from El Salvador and Guatemala -- whose children were left behind.

Gov. Deval Patrick heard one tragic story after another from some of the families of the workers who packed into a New Bedford church Thursday night to tell him their stories.

"There were stories of humiliation, of fear, of anxiety and uncertainty," Patrick said.

Tuesday, 361 undocumented workers at the Michael Bianco factory were arrested by federal authorities and taken to the former Fort Devens military base and then flown to a detention center in Harlingen, Texas, on Wednesday. Some 116 others were flown to New Mexico on Thursday. The detainees remaining in Massachusetts were transferred to local jails, except for those who have been released on humanitarian grounds, and the Devens facility has now been vacated,

Many of the workers were separated from their families. One woman was released because she is breast-feeding a 7-month-old baby, but her husband was kept in detention. Two breast-fed babies were hospitalized for dehydration after being separated from their mothers.

Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Julie Myers said ICE agents asked each of the those arrested if they were sole caregivers to children.

Myers noted that 60 people were released as a result of that questioning. She said ICE was being unfairly criticized for allegedly not considering the needs of children affected by the arrests.

"Nothing could be further from the truth," she wrote in a letter to Patrick.

The state has identified at least 35 children whose parents were arrested, said JudyAnn Bigby, secretary of Health and Human Services. She said those children were staying with relatives or friends, but she added that it's important for state social workers to interview their parents to make sure the kids are staying with responsible adults. The state said it had found 29 foster homes in case they were needed.

There are other children who are either adolescents or had keys to their homes "and went home with no one there," Bigby said.

"They have not self-identified themselves. We have no idea how many that is," she said.

Patrick asked anyone with information about children in need of help to call 1-800-792-5200. He emphasized that the state has no role in turning illegal immigrants over to federal authorities.

...

It's cold outside ...

... cold as ICE

Mydd has a great story on fundraising - in particular on Obama's numbers.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/3/8/22382...

Oh, and good morning, folks!

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/03/09/democrats_party_chief_casts_his_lot_with_obama?mode=PF

March 9, 2007

Philip W. Johnston, the Massachusetts Democratic Party chairman who served in the Clinton administration, declared his support yesterday for Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton's top rival for the party's presidential nomination.

Calling Obama "the future of our party," Johnston also said the first-term Illinois Democrat's strong opposition to the war in Iraq was an important factor in his decision. Johnston, who met with Obama last week in Washington, said he will join the candidate's national finance committee and offer advice on healthcare.

Johnston, who plans to step down this spring as state party chairman, was appointed New England regional administrator of the US Department of Health and Human Services during President Clinton's first term. He now operates a healthcare consulting business.

Backing Obama "was a difficult choice, in that I had been a Clinton appointee and I know Hillary, and I respect her a great deal," Johnston said.

Johnston, who won the Clinton administration post because of his strong ties to Senator Edward M. Kennedy, said he is disappointed that Mrs. Clinton, a second-term senator from New York, has not acknowledged that she made a mistake by voting in 2002 to support the Iraq war resolution.

...

Philip W. Johnston, the Massachusetts Democratic Party chairman who served in the Clinton administration, declared his support yesterday for Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton's top rival for the party's presidential nomination.

That right there is enough for me to NOT support him.

Barbara wrote "That [one of Obama's supporters served in the Clinton administration] is enough for me to NOT support him."

Not just an Al Gore supporter but Al Gore himself served in the Clinton administration.  Is that enough for you not to support him?

21.

JudyforDean
Fri, 03/09/07
1:16 am

..........
A predator becomes more dangerous when wounded

...
Noam Chomsky
Friday March 9, 2007
The Guardian

In the energy-rich Middle East, only two countries have failed to subordinate themselves to Washington's basic demands: Iran and Syria. Accordingly both are enemies, Iran by far the more important. As was the norm during the cold war, resort to violence is regularly justified as a reaction to the malign influence of the main enemy, often on the flimsiest of pretexts....

...again unsurprisingly, the "surge" in Iraq and escalation of threats and accusations against Iran is accompanied by grudging willingness to attend a conference of regional powers, with the agenda limited to Iraq.

Presumably this minimal gesture toward diplomacy is intended to allay the growing fears and anger elicited by Washington's heightened aggressiveness....

....Washington's worst nightmare would be a loose Shia alliance controlling most of the world's oil and independent of the US.
------------

Will this "minimal gesture toward diplomacy" fool people around the World as well as Americans themselves AGAIN?

3189

Lind's opinion of Congress

http://www.d-n-i.net/lind/lind_3_07_07.h...

excerpt:
"Supporting the troops" is just another dodge. The only way to support the troops when a war is lost is to end the war and bring them home. Nor is it a challenge to design legislative language that both ends the war and supports the troops. All the Democratic majorities in Congress have to do is condition the funding for the Iraq war with the words, "No funds may be obligated or expended except for the withdrawal of all American forces from Iraq, and for such force protection actions as may be necessary during that withdrawal." If Bush vetoes the bill, he vetoes continued funding for the war. If he signs the bill, ignores the legislative language and keeps fighting the war in the same old way, he sets himself up for impeachment.
What's not to like?

Re William Lind's column:  The Senators play baseball in Washington?  Who knew?

10.

dog soldier
Fri, 03/09/07
10:53 am

...
"Supporting the troops" is just another dodge. The only way to support the troops when a war is lost is to end the war and bring them home.
-----------

That's not the option, the war Bush&Co. fights in Iraq is the war for this Co. VERY EXISTENCE.

The end of this war... means end of this Co., therefore its not an option for them,...necessity only.

I hope I am not the only reader who wonders about Mr. Lind’s agenda when he writes "events on the ground in Iraq and elsewhere will outrun the political process, [resulting in] the abandonment of both parties by their bases and a possible left-right grass roots alliance against the corrupt and incompetent center." You will note he is Director for the Center for Cultural Conservatism for the Free Congress Foundation, "a 28-year-old Washington, DC-based conservative educational foundation (think tank) that teaches people how to be effective in the political process, advocates judicial reform, promotes cultural conservatism, and works against the government encroachment of individual liberties."

13.

Tom Bearse
Fri, 03/09/07
11:23 am
-----

Thanks Tom,

I actually haven't dug into it, just replied to posted excerpts.

But I must agree with him, as he pointed out "In that possibility may lie the nation's best hope.", even more, imo, it's the most likely outcome of current crisis. The problem though to manage of keeping it "cold"...

Ah, the invisible hand....


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

Unemployment Rate Drops to 4.5 Percent
Email this Story

Mar 9, 9:05 AM (ET)

By JEANNINE AVERSA


WASHINGTON (AP) - The nation's unemployment rate dipped to 4.5 percent in February even as big losses of construction and factory jobs restrained overall payroll growth. Wages grew briskly.

more propoganda folks. move along, nothing to see here.

anyone going to be in d.c. on march 17 for the march on the pentagon.

of course the media will be in their cave that day.

A populist political movement would be hard to keep from becoming an "anti" movement and would have strange bedfellows.

most of the anti-beltway types in rural Iowa are of a right leaning libertarian bent

but strangely the ones I know talk in similar language to those who oppose the School of the Americas  and a global military run amuck (yes I know they changed its name it was so hated)

since I am always trying to involve people who don't vote because they don't see a difference between the parties I get to see all kinds

former, if you think the nation’s best hope lies in having the base of both parties join in a left-right alliance, or in following a course wherein cultural conservatism and opposition to government encroachment of individual liberties are concurrently pursued, I will step aside to permit you to proceed. This agenda produces an alarming cognitive dissonance for me.

Tom Bearse
Fri, 03/09/07
10:03 am


Different rules for different players, that is nothing new on this web site. Murtha (Mr. wheeler/dealer) and Byrd(Mr. KKK) being the best examples.

http://home.ourfuture.org/tba07/agenda.html

look at the agenda for tlat years Take Back America conf. Awesome.

Hope to see some of you there in june. Trying to get TBA to set up a table and maybe a workshop.

linda b
Fri, 03/09/07
11:43 am


Only listening to those that agree with you and ignoring facts is strange behavior for a "liberal".

perfect time in the cycle to rescind the tax cut since all is swell

all the happy talk about how great the economy is would turn on a dime if Democrats got serious about rescinding the tax cuts it would immediately be doom and gloom we are at the edge of a recession

Things are changing in our party.  Remember an email Howard Dean sent us the day after the election in 04? He said today is not an ending and we were just getting started.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1169

Missouri ag economist Ron Plain predicts a 12 % price rise for milk eggs and meat due to ethanol.

of course the "volitile" food and fuel are left out of rosy inflation numbers even though everyone has seen ga prices jump $.50/gal

18.

Phil Specht
Fri, 03/09/07
11:45 am


A populist political movement would be hard to keep from becoming an "anti" movement and would have strange bedfellows.

most of the anti-beltway types in rural Iowa are of a right leaning libertarian bent
--------

The primary barrier, imo, between conventional lefties and "right leaning libertarian" (who in most cases are "conventional righties") IS THE GOVERNMENT per-se.

Ones believe government presence is inevitable, other's dream is to get rid of it once and for all.

When "lefties" manage to see government "of, by, for" the people as self-governance, then such strange alliance may at some point became not so strange.

rdorgan keeps pushing Obama, but I view him, along with Hillary, as a quintessential corporate-establishment Democrat. That's certainly the only way to explain his voting record in the Senate. He pretty much follows the Emanuel-Schumer-Lieberman line on social issues and Israel. On Iraq he's taken a convoluted anti-war approach that allows him to vote pretty much any way the wind is blowing.

I despair for poor Dennis Kucinich, who's the only candidate that's crystal clear on the Iraq war, the Military-industrial complex, and other issues. For me he wins hands down on the issues, but the pundits and the Democratic establishment shun him.

a dollar for dollar paygo of the supplemental by rescinding the tax cut top rate will end the war quicker than benchmarks

but even if it wouldn't it is good economics and good politics for Democrats

19.

Tom Bearse
Fri, 03/09/07
11:46 am

This agenda produces an alarming cognitive dissonance for me.

---------
I know, it may sound strange today..., see my post #27.

Phil wrote "all the happy talk about how great the economy is would turn on a dime if Democrats got serious about rescinding the tax cuts it would immediately be doom and gloom we are at the edge of a recession."

The tax cuts have been an unmitigated disaster for both the deficit and the economy.  That's why Adam Smith's excitement over a decrease in the number of people seeking to wash dishes and bus tables is misplaced.

"Members of the Administration routinely tout statistics regarding recent economic growth, then credit the President’s tax cuts with what they portray as a stellar economic performance.  But as a general rule, it is difficult or impossible to infer the effect of a given tax cut from looking at a few years of economic data, simply because so many factors other than tax policy influence the economy.  What the data do show clearly is that, despite major tax cuts in 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004, the economy’s recent performance has been far from stellar.

"Growth rates of GDP, investment, and other key economic indicators have been below the average for other post-World War II economic expansions.  Growth in wages and salaries and non-residential investment has been particularly slow relative to previous recoveries, and, while the Administration boasts of its record on jobs, employment growth has been weaker in the current recovery than in any previous post-World War II expansion.

"The typical working-age household, meanwhile, has seen income losses during the current expansion.  Census data show that among households headed by someone under age 65, median income, adjusted for inflation, fell again in 2005 and was $2,000 below its level during the 2001 recession.  This marks the first time on record (with data back to the 1970s) that the median income of the working-age population was lower in the fourth year of an economic recovery than it had been during the previous recession.  Similarly, the poverty rate remained higher in 2005 than during the last recession, which marks the first time on record that poverty has been higher in the fourth year of an economic expansion then in the preceding recession."

http://www.cbpp.org/9-27-06tax.htm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/the-libby-verdict-and-the_b_42901.html

It was fitting that on the same day federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald won a conviction in the Libby trial, up on Capitol Hill six fired federal prosecutors were testifying about their questionable removal from office. Plamegate and the starting-to-boil Justice Dept. scandal are of a piece, emblematic of the Bush administration's use of intimidation -- and of the crass politicization of parts of government supposed to be above partisan manipulation.

Bush and Cheney's mendacity and fondness for bullying tactics -- put on repellant display in the Libby trial -- haven't just contaminated the White House staff. The disease has infected the entire Republican Party.

I despair for poor Dennis Kucinich, who's the only candidate that's crystal clear on the Iraq war, the Military-industrial complex, and other issues. For me he wins hands down on the issues, but the pundits and the Democratic establishment shun him.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Huron,

Its like Tom and me fencing yesterday about the Greens vs Dems...............the cycle we are now in, after years of failed foreign policy and interference globally has come back to haunt us..both major parties are to blame......the Dems, although beter than the Repubs(anybody is though) offer no real changes globally.......therefore I lien my vote for them as to kissing your sister or agreeing to that blind date when we were 15 years old, even though he/she was a bow wow.

 Europe gets it.......SA gets it.....Asia gets it............the US is last as usual.

cheers

28.

Huron John
Fri, 03/09/07
12:00 pm


I despair for poor Dennis Kucinich, who's the only candidate that's crystal clear on the Iraq war, the Military-industrial complex, and other issues. For me he wins hands down on the issues, but the pundits and the Democratic establishment shun him.
-------
...lol, yep.
Clear example of how and by whom our nation leaders are "created" in this "democracy"...

John wrote "For me [Kucinich] wins hands down on the issues, but the pundits and the Democratic establishment shun him."

Here's a little challenge for amusement or whatever.  If Kucinich is not the Democratic cadidate for president in 2008 (because he won't be), who would you like us to support instead?

http://www.counterpunch.org/murphy03092007.html

(Rhetorical Question)

Since the Democrats were clearly elected with a mandate to end the war and, given that President Bush will surely veto this legislation anyway, why would the Democratic leadership propose legislation that would kill another 60,000 innocent Iraqis and 1,800 Americans before finally bringing the war to an end? The Associated Press report suggests that this was a compromise bill that would satisfy "liberal Democrats" reluctant to vote for continued funding without driving away "more moderate Democrats". The Democratic leadership fears that without a united party they would suffer an embarrassing defeat when the legislation reaches a vote later this month. Does this make any sense at all?

It is difficult to determine which group of Democratic legislators is more odious; the "liberal Democrats" who purport to want an immediate end to the Iraqi war but will compromise by letting another 60,000 people die in the name of party unity or the "more moderate Democrats" who have no problem murdering another 60,000 Iraqis so that they do not give the impression that they are tying the hands of the military commanders.

The congressional Democrats know that President Bush will veto this proposed legislation but he could not veto legislation that did not provide the additional funds necessary for the continued prosecution of the war. Furthermore, even if the congressional Democrats in the House failed to pass legislation that would cut funding for the war, the Senate Democrats could filibuster legislation requiring its continued funding. It would only take 41 of the 51 Senate Democrats to accomplish this effective ending of the war!

Conscience is clearly not a metric evaluated by the congressional Democrats in their strategy formulation process. The only variables considered worthy of evaluation by the congressional Democrats are party unity and the vote-getting utility of a continued war on their 2008 congressional and presidential election aspirations. There are many words which might aptly describe the Congressional Democrats but certainly not "spineless". One must question, however, whether those who continue to vote for the Democrats year after year are indeed themselves invertebrate.

When the Democrat Party workers start trolling for votes a year and a half from now they will tell the nibblers to "hold your nose and vote for the Democrats. After all, what are you going to do, vote for a Republican?" The appropriate response should be "no, I won't vote for Republican but I can no longer associate myself with the bottom feeders called Democrats. I'll vote for an independent candidate or perhaps a Green Party candidate. I will stand with Martin Luther King and remember that "there comes a time when we must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic nor popular but we must take it because our conscience tells us that it is right".

From 36:

This bears repeating. The congressional Democrats know that President Bush will veto this proposed legislation but he could not veto legislation that did not provide the additional funds necessary for the continued prosecution of the war. Furthermore, even if the congressional Democrats in the House failed to pass legislation that would cut funding for the war, the Senate Democrats could filibuster legislation requiring its continued funding. It would only take 41 of the 51 Senate Democrats to accomplish this effective ending of the war!

***********************************************

There's no political downside to this course of action!

What's the matter with these clowns?

Here in VA the rethugs in charge of the legislature just shoved a transportation bill through that takes money from the general fund (like for schools, etc) and also makes the localities raise taxes for their own roads. This is insane.

So...all seats are in play this fall. THROW THE BUMS OUT. ALL OF THEM

the last three years have been busy and the next two  are crucial.

Lets see what we can do.

Here's a little challenge for amusement or whatever.  If Kucinich is not the Democratic cadidate for president in 2008 (because he won't be), who would you like us to support instead?

John wrote "I just don't know what I'll do if it's Hillary and/or Obama versus McCain or Rudy."

Perhaps not, but give it some thought.  If ballots from you and Mike and others aren't marked for Clinton or Obama, but for a third party candidate, how do the prospects of a President McCain or President Giuliani sit with you?  The reason I ask, of course, is because Ralph Nader believed fervently that there was no difference between a Gore and Bush administration in 2000.

Huron John
Fri, 03/09/07
12:18 pm

ANother counterpunch attack hit against Dems. Hmmmm....while I agree with some of the sentiment, I don't agree with his election strategy.

This author, John Murphy, got 4% of the vote in his District. And the PA green party is the same despicable group that accepted rethug money to try to run for the Senate which may have resulted in LOSING the Senate. They gave the Greens nationwide a huge black eye. I certainly don't think we ought to hold them up as principled.

OK, we've done it. We've nailed it down: Every single contributor to the Pennsylvania Green Party Senate candidate is actually a conservative -- except for the candidate himself.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001256.php

Huron John
Fri, 03/09/07
12:22 pm

John, there IS a political downside. A supplemental has to get passed. Not funding anything wouldn't fly. I mean, noone's proposing that. Now saying the supplemental MUST go toward redeployment and can't be used for the escalation is possible. But the House has caved on that one.

Anyway, a Dem filibuster holding up the supplemental doesn't make sense and really would be politically disastrous.

 Had enough???

Op-Ed Columnist

For those of us living in the Garden State, the growing scandal over the firing of federal prosecutors immediately brought to mind the subpoenas that Chris Christie, the former Bush “Pioneer” who is now the U.S. attorney for New Jersey, issued two months before the 2006 election — and the way news of the subpoenas was quickly leaked to local news media.

Paul Krugman.

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/opinion/09krugman.html

wow, how did I get the pix in there?

NYT--a "smatterring of protests" on Bush's Brazil visit.

AP-Police clashed Thursday with students, environmentalists and left-leaning Brazilians protesting a visit by President Bush and his push for an ethanol energy alliance with Latin America's largest nation.

More than a "smattering", apparently.

what does a "left leaning brazilian" look like? for jeezus sake.

Anyway, a Dem filibuster holding up the supplemental doesn't make sense and really would be politically disastrous

 Makes sense to me. And the majority of Americans would applaud it.

It certainly would wind down the war, which a majority want.

The house bill is a cynical sham--gets shot down or vetoed, then congressional Dems can shrug shoulders and say "we tried".

The quandary in Congress. You have to get over 50% of the votes to pass something. Some more purist writers like John Murphy above don't seem to care about that. (BTW you need that to win an election too, John!).

The House can't get the votes without watering down because of the Blue Dogs. The Senate couldn't even get 41 Senators to stand up to support the nonbinding resolution; they sure aren't going to get them to filibuster the supplemental.

I am very distressed over the impasse and the weak House opening hand. You don't start with your weakest hand. You start with your strongest; when that gets vetoed, you then have a fallback.

I support the progressive caucus position: Troops home by Christmas. No more combat role. But how do you get there from here? I truly don't know.....and I'm sick about it.

The House has to pass a bill Bush will veto.

once he does it is he that has ended the war

Huron John
Fri, 03/09/07
12:53 pm

John,

The supplemental is the money necessary to do anything. Congress doesn't pass the supplemental and there is no money. That really is abandoning the troops. Because they will need money to redeploy and withdraw. The American people wouldn't tolerate watching hummers out of gas getting blown up to put it crudely.

Maybe they could filibuster the supplemental to force concessions of some kind. But some kind of supplemental is going to pass. It's just a matter of what it's for.

NOW Newsletter
Friday, March 9, 2007 on PBS
(Check local listings at
http://www.pbs.org/now/sched.html)

======================================================= 


This Week: A Growing Hunger


Are U.S. farm subsidies causing global
starvation?

There are roughly 30,000 cotton growers in
America who receive billions of our U.S. tax dollars
every year through government subsidies. But
critics charge this generous financial support may be
ruining the livelihoods of millions of cotton
growers in the poorest parts of the world.

NOW looks at the tragic global consequences of
our subsidies, and.....

STATE BY STATE - FARM SUBSIDY - CORPORATE WELFARE

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/310/farm-subsidies.html#here