Elizabeth Warren for Senate? MA Dems Not On Board So Far

Posted: July 18, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: Barack Obama, Democratic Politics, The DNC, U.S. Economy, U.S. Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , | 44 Comments

The blogosphere is all a-flutter over the possibility of Elizabeth Warren running for the Senate from Massachusetts.

The Progressive Change Campaign has begun a petition drive to draft Warren.

Taylor Marsh is reporting that Warren told Andrea Mitchell that she will think about the Senate after she gets back to Harvard.

Greg Sargent has posted a list of reasons why national Democrats want Warren to run.

So how do Massachusetts Democrats feel about all this? A few days ago, The Boston Globe’s Joan Vennochi wrote that President Obama was afraid to unlikely to appoint Elizabeth Warren as head of the new Consumer Protection Agency that she fought for and then built, so now her supporters are pushing a Senate run against Republican Scott Brown as a “consolation prize.” According to Vennochi, this initiative isn’t being received all that well here in Massachusetts.

On paper, her candidacy would attract women, liberals, and money from both constituencies, locally and nationally. “She’s tough as nails . . . She’s smart as hell and she could wrap Scott Brown around her little finger in a debate,’’ said Philip Johnston, [John] Walsh’s predecessor as state party chairman.

But Warren isn’t well-known, beyond a small circle of elite Democrats. She has never run for office or built a grassroots organization. And a handful of candidates already in the race won’t be happy about being big-footed, leaving current supporters in an awkward spot.

Massachusetts Democrats aren’t too pleased with the DSCC these days after they and Obama chose not to support Martha Coakley against Scott Brown. State party chairman Walsh told Vennochi that he probably wouldn’t support Warren’s candidacy, since he is backing John Kerry’s chosen candidate Setti Warren. Vennochi:

The idea of Washington Democrats imposing their will on Massachusetts Democrats is distasteful. The DSCC, especially, is not popular here after its tactics largely backfired in the special election that Brown stunningly won. A lack of initial support for Democrat Martha Coakley was followed up by a belated barrage of negative ads that hurt rather than helped Coakley.

The DSCC can also come off as bullies.

Last month, when Kerry was hosting a fundraiser for the DSCC at his Beacon Hill home, he wanted to invite Setti Warren to the event. But the DSCC said no to inviting only one candidate because the group didn’t want to look like it is taking sides – unless, of course, it’s Elizabeth Warren’s side.

Besides, would Obama pitch in to support Warren for Senate? Somehow I doubt it.

Moody’s: Dump the Debt Ceiling

Posted: July 18, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: 2012 presidential campaign, Federal Budget and Budget deficit, U.S. Economy, U.S. Politics, voodoo economics, We are so F'd | Tags: , , , , , | 4 Comments

Reuters reports that the ratings agency Moody’s is once again involving itself in the debate over the federal debt by suggested the U.S. eliminate the debt ceiling. Here’s the argument:

The United States is one of the few countries where Congress sets a ceiling on government debt, which creates “periodic uncertainty” over the government’s ability to meet its obligations, Moody’s said in a report.

“We would reduce our assessment of event risk if the government changed its framework for managing government debt to lessen or eliminate that uncertainty,” Moody’s analyst Steven Hess wrote in the report….

“…the current wide divisions between the House of Representatives and the Obama administration over the debt limit creates a high level of uncertainty and causes us to raise our assessment of event risk,” Hess said.

Moody’s suggested that the U.S. could use Chile as a model for fiscal responsibility:

“Elsewhere, the level of deficits is constrained by a ‘fiscal rule,’ which means the rise in debt is constrained though not technically limited,” Moody’s said, adding that such rule has been effective in Chile.

I’m sure that will go over well with the Tea Party types.

Moody’s argues that dumping the debt ceiling would be far better than the current “compromise” plan which would force Democrats to vote three times on raising the borrowing limit during the lead up to the 2012 presidential election. From CNN Money:

On Monday, Moody’s threw some cold water on a backup plan that is gaining momentum among lawmakers as the chances of a compromise deal fade.

The plan, crafted by Sens. Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid, would allow the debt ceiling to be increased, while shifting the political blame for that action from Congress to the White House….

“Without more substantial deficit reductions being included in such a plan, it would be negative for the long-term outlook,” the report said.

But overall, Moody’s said “the U.S. would be better off if the debt ceiling were eliminated entirely.”

The McConnell-Reid plan would also establish a new Catfood Commission with the power to produce legislation that could not be amended by Congress.

I’m sure Moody’s would be OK with that, but I’m sure not. Maybe Congress needs to dump the McConnell-Reid catfood-for-everyone-but-the-rich-plan and get rid of the debt ceiling instead.

Monday Reads

Posted: July 18, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: morning reads | Tags: , , , , , | 29 Comments

Good Morning!!

There are two big news items these days.  The GOP continues to be stupid when it comes to deficit talks and it is really looking like Murdoch INC is about to crash and burn. Let’s look at the deficit story first.

The right wing of the GOP continues to block any middle path budget deal.  Jim Demint and Eric Cantor win the traitors of the year award.

Final revisions made Friday submerge conservative demands to reduce all federal spending to 18 percent of gross domestic product — a target that threatened to split the GOP by requiring far deeper cuts than even the party’s April budget. But Republican congressional leaders still want a 10-year, $1.8 trillion cut from nondefense appropriations and have added a balanced-budget constitutional amendment that so restricts future tax legislation that even President Ronald Reagan might have opposed it in the 1980s.

Indeed, much of the deficit-reduction legislation signed by Reagan would not qualify under the new tea-party-driven standards. And even the famed Reagan-Tip O’Neill Social Security compromise — which raised payroll taxes — passed the House in 1983 well short of the 290 votes that would be required under the constitutional amendments being promoted by the GOP.

Dubbed Cut, Cap and Balance, the House bill allows for a $2.4 trillion increase in the Treasury’s borrowing authority but effectively uses the Aug. 2 deadline as a Republican anvil on which to hammer out cuts President Barack Obama would otherwise veto.

We knew this was coming last December when they renewed the idiotic Bush tax cuts.  I have no idea why they didn’t take care of this while the Democratic party was still in charge of the House.

The mess created by Rupert Murdoch’s News International looks to take the emperor of sleeze down.  We’ve now had two resignations, one paper closure, an arrest and a resignation of the Head of Scotland Yard.  Which will collapse first?  The U.S. economy or Fox News and the Wall Street Journal?

The commissioner’s resignation came as the London political establishment was still digesting the stunning news about the arrest of Ms. Brooks — who apparently was surprised herself. A consummate networker who has always been assiduously courted by politicians and whose friends include Prime Minister David Cameron, Ms. Brooks, 43, is the 10th and by far the most powerful person to be arrested so far in the phone-hacking scandal.

Her arrest is bound to be particularly wounding to Mr. Murdoch, who, asked early last week to identify his chief priority in the affair, pointed to Ms. Brooks and said, “This one.”

Ms. Brooks has not yet been formally charged, but it is significant that she is being questioned in connection with two separate investigations. One, called Operation Weeting, is examining allegations of widespread phone hacking at the News of the World, the tabloid at the center of the scandal, where Ms. Brooks was editor from 2000 to 2003. The other is Operation Elveden, which is looking into more serious charges that News International editors paid police officers for information.

Ms. Brooks has always maintained that she was unaware of wrongdoing at The News of the World, which was summarily closed by Mr. Murdoch a week ago in an unsuccessful damage-control exercise. But the tide rose against her, and on Friday she resigned, saying in a statement that her presence was “detracting attention” from the company.

This entanglement is beginning to remind me of some Steig Larsson crime novel.  All we need is a girl with a dragon tattoo. News Corps shares are falling as the scandal continues to grow. Couldn’t happen to a bigger sleezebag as far as I’m concerned.

The shares fell 7.6 percent to as low as A$13.65, their lowest since July 2009, and also a 7.4 percent discount to News Corp’s (NWSA.O) last U.S. close, implying that $3 billion of market capitalization would be wiped out when U.S. trade resumes.

“There’s a lot of sentiment and emotion driving the stock,” said Simon Burge, chief investment officer at ATI Asset Management in Sydney, which holds News Corp shares.

“From an earnings point of view, News of the World was less than 1 percent of earnings but this has catapulted to something greater and it is hard to quantify.”

It was the biggest one-day slide for the shares since November 2008.

Paul Krugman lets bankers and the people that enable their bad decision-making have it.  Of course, we all know who the head-bankster enabler in chief is, don’t we?

Ever since the current economic crisis began, it has seemed that five words sum up the central principle of United States financial policy: go easy on the bankers.

This principle was on display during the final months of the Bush administration, when a huge lifeline for the banks was made available with few strings attached. It was equally on display in the early months of the Obama administration, when President Obama reneged on his campaign pledge to “change our bankruptcy laws to make it easier for families to stay in their homes.” And the principle is still operating right now, as federal officials press state attorneys general to accept a very modest settlement from banks that engaged in abusive mortgage practices.

Why the kid-gloves treatment? Money and influence no doubt play their part; Wall Street is a huge source of campaign donations, and agencies that are supposed to regulate banks often end up serving them instead. But officials have also argued at each point of the process that letting banks off the hook serves the interests of the economy as a whole.

It doesn’t. The failure to seek real mortgage relief early in the Obama administration is one reason we still have 9 percent unemployment. And right now, the arguments that officials are reportedly making for a quick, bank-friendly settlement of the mortgage-abuse scandal don’t make sense.

Yup.  We still have mortgage messes, unemployment crises, and partisan wars.  It’s a wonderful country these days, isn’t it? Meanwhile, neoconfederate religionist governor Rick Perry is toe tapping in the Austin area about running for president.  All the Birchers are orgasmic!  Just another great white hope for the country’s extremists!

Perry is a staunch advocate of states’ rights and of a limited role for the federal government, views he laid out in his 2010 book, “Fed Up!: Our Fight to Save America from Washington.”

Critics said he took the states’ rights argument too far in 2009, with remarks that implied the possibility of secession.

He was responding to questions after a tea party event in which audience members screamed “secede.” He then said that while he didn’t believe there was any reason to dissolve the union, “if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that?”

Today, he’s adamant he never meant to suggest secession as an option.

“The idea that we’re going to break off is just nonsense, and anyone who is a thoughtful American knows that,” Perry said. “This is a diversion from what’s really important.”

Perry marches in step with Iowa’s social conservatives by opposing same-sex marriage and abortion. He signed a bill this year that mandates a sonogram be taken before abortions.

He has been praised and mocked for mixing his religious beliefs with his actions as the elected head of the state.

In April, he issued a proclamation calling for a three-day period of prayer for rain. Comedian Bill Maher poked fun at the move, comparing it to ancient Mayan beliefs.

And Perry has planned on Aug. 6 a Christian prayer meeting with the American Family Association in Houston. He’s asked governors to issue proclamations urging constituents to engage in prayer and fasting “for our nation to seek God’s guidance and wisdom in addressing the challenges that face our communities, states and nation.”

So, that’s enough excitement for me for one Monday morning!  What’s on your reading and blogging list today?

 

Late Night: Pedophiles, Parks, and Playgrounds

Posted: July 17, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: child sexual abuse, children | Tags: , , , , , , | 9 Comments

Kids playing in Central Park, NYC

A few years ago I was at a children’s playground with my sister-in-law and my two nephews. The younger boy was about 3 years old. My sister-in-law usually reads while the kids are playing, but being a doting aunt, I like to hang out with them as much as I can.

This day that I’m talking about, a small man, probably in his 50s, was hanging around by himself, watching the kids. He was carrying what looked like a very expensive camera. He started following my 3-year-old nephew around, snapping numerous pictures of him. He even asked me how old my nephew was and said, “he’s such a beautiful boy.”

Right away I had a bad feeling about the guy, so I asked him what he was doing. He gave me a hokey story about wanting to try out his new camera. So why do that in a kids playground? I asked if one of the kids was his, and he said no. From that point on, I didn’t leave my nephew’s side, and eventually the guy moved on.

I tried to talk to my sister-in-law about this incident, but she kind of blew me off. She seemed to think it was no big deal that this older man was hanging around a kid’s playground taking pictures.

Tonight I read a blog post that validated the thoughts I was having that day–that the man taking pictures was a pedophile who could very well be trading his photos with other pedophiles on-line. Most people don’t realize that child pornography is big business–especially now that photos can be shared on the internet.

If you wish, you can read the post via a link at The Hinky Meter. When you click on the link, you’ll get a warning that the material in the post could be disturbing. I didn’t find it all that surprising, but as a psychologist I may be more familiar with the behavior of pedophiles than many other people are.

In case you choose not to read the post, I’ll just say that it describes an outing by young schoolchildren in New York’s Central Park and the efforts of several fathers to chase off men trying to photograph the kids. The solution I learned from the post is to take photos of these guys and let them know that you’re hanging onto pictures of their faces for future reference.

The man who confessed to murdering Leiby Kletzky had been observed staring at neighborhood children and hanging around schoolyards and playgrounds. Now, it is being reported that he previously tried to abduct other boys. I’m not sure what can be done about people like this. It’s not against the law to take pictures of children, so I guess parents and other caregivers need to be on the lookout for these sickos.

These are not My American Values

Posted: July 17, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: just because | Tags: , , , | 30 Comments

The U.S. Constitution clearly states that the government shall not establish any religion as a state religion.  It confirms the rights of people to be safe in their privacy and that they should not be subject to unreasonable search or seizure. There are very clear powers delineated so that the majority cannot assert a form of tyranny and remove the rights of the minority.  For a group that holds that Constitution supposedly in esteem, Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann,  many Republicans, and a good deal of the so-called Tea Party movement sure don’t seem to get the fundamentals of the U.S. Constitution. I descended from two signers of that document and five signers of the Declaration of Independence.  I grew up surrounded by lawyers and veterans of foreign wars that knew what it meant to fight for the rights there in. That is why I get totally mad when I read things like this: Herman Cain: Americans Have The Right To Ban Mosques .

Herman Cain says voters across the country should have the right to prevent Muslims from building mosques in their communities.

In an exchange on “Fox News Sunday,” the Republican presidential contender said that he sided with some in a town near Nashville who were trying to prevent Muslims from worshiping in their community.

“Our Constitution guarantees the separation of church and state,” he said. “Islam combines church and state. They’re using the church part of our First Amendment to infuse their morals in that community, and the people of that community do not like it. They disagree with it.”

Asked by host Chris Wallace if any community could ban a mosque if it wanted to, Cain said: “They have a right to do that.”

Cain, an African-American who grew up during the civil rights era, claimed he was not discriminating against Muslims. He said it was “totally different” than the fight for racial equality because there were laws prohibiting blacks from advancing.

Nonetheless, Cain has drawn backlash for comments about Muslims in the past, saying that he would be uncomfortable if a Muslim served in his Cabinet if he were elected president.

“I’m willing to take a harder look at people that might be terrorists,” Cain said Sunday. “If you look at my career, I have never discriminated against anybody. … I’m going to err on the side of caution.”

It’s difficult to think of things to say to this other than it’s plain old bigotry and hatred.  Bigotry and hatred are not one of my American Values.  I value tolerance.

Here’s another example of something that should go without saying.

He may not agree with the vote in New York to legalize gay marriage, but former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani said the Republican Party should butt out of the bedroom and stick to fiscal policy. “I think the Republican Party would be well advised to get the heck out of people’s bedrooms and let these things get decided by states,” Giuliani said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “We’d be a much more successful political party if we stuck to our economic, conservative roots.”

It saddens me to see one of the two major political parties hellbent on preventing women from practicing their constitutional right to abortion and access to birth control, stopping GLBT citizens from having full civil rights, and standing in the way of any religion to practice their beliefs as they see fit.  These are extremist religious positions and have nothing to do with any American Value that I’ve ever grown up knowing.   We need to keep speaking up vehemently that we will not tolerate any one in this country decimating the civil liberties and constitutional rights of others. It’s WE THE PEOPLE, not we the white, right wing, extremist christians in the country.

Something to think about from My Fellow American.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →