making me lose my mind

"I remember when, I remember, I remember when I lost my mind...But it wasn't because I didn't know enough. I just knew too much."

- "Crazy" by Gnarls Barkley

We've recently blogged about Bush signing a bill that shreds the Geneva Conventions, pisses on the Bill of Rights, and terminates the 800 year-old right of habeas corpus, and now I've read a post by Major Danby at Daily Kos that Bush has gutted Posse Comitatus and grabbed the National Guard.

This was done three weeks ago when 'The Department of Defense Appropriation Act 2007' was passed by the U.S. Congress and then was signed into law by Bush on September 29, 2006.

As noted at Kos, this bill:

". . . gives the President -- this President -- the power, in the event of any "disaster, accident, or catastrophe" that he deems to require it, to:

- involuntarily take National Guard troops from State A and
- require them to work in State B for up to a year,
- in law enforcement rather than just traditional areas like disaster relief,
- over the objection of both state's governors"

Remember when Bush and Gov. Blanco had their little "spat" about who was in control during the response to Katrina? That was no little "spat," that was Bush's first attempt to grab this power -- the power to have the entire military - National Guard, Army, Navy, etc. -- act as a civilian police force under federal command.

Further down the thread in the comments section of his post Major Danby reminds us why it's significant to be able to bring in National Guard members from other states to act as a police force:

In Tienanmen Square the Communist Party brought in troops from the provinces who were unaware of what the argument was about in Beijing to shoot down the rioters. They knew that people would be more willing to shoot at those unlike them. The insight that this ploy is possible is part of what led the Founding Fathers to avoid a national police force. Can we trust a President who already acts like he aspires to be a member of the Chinese Community Party, who puts power above all else, with such power? Can we wait to find out? This is a story that should spread through the middle of the country to every shore. The states still mean something. Except, perhaps, to the likes of George W. Bush. The phrase you're grasping for is "martial law." It just got easier to impose.

My apologies to students who took my U.S. Government class in the 90s: evidently the Constitution doesn't limit Presidential power after all. Who knew?

But the most chilling and accurate summation of all we've given up is provided by BriVT:

Just to be clear

The President can now, in perfect legality, grab a state's National Guard, send it to another state to round up any group he declares "enemy combatants" under the broad powers given him, have that entire group taken by that army unit to a military camp, held indefinitely without access to lawyers, subjected to torture and then tried and convicted on the evidence gleaned from that torture. At no point can any outside group or entity challenge the designation of "enemy combatant," nor can they petition for a release under habeas corpus.

There is truly nothing illegal about any part of that scenario. ALL OF IT IS PERFECTLY LEGAL UNDER THE LAWS PASSED BY CONGRESS.

Where is the daylight between that and a true authoritarian government?

When are we going to stand up say that we refuse to give the President -- any President -- the powers of an emperor?

We are letting our republic end without a bang...without even a whimper.

How is it possible that we have succumbed to this madness?

How can we call ourselves Americans?

"My heroes had the heart to live their lives out on a limb. And all I remember is thinkin' I wanna be like them."

- "Crazy" by Gnarls Barkley

Altmire/Hart on Talkingpointsmemo's radar

Take a look.

Did the NRCC tip their hand? The NRCC dropped $163,000 into the PA 4 race -- Hart (R) v. Altmire (D) -- after spending a little under $11,000 on a poll. It sounds like they didn't like what they heard from that poll.

Just a few days ago, the Altmire campaign released its own poll that had him trailing Hart by a mere four points -- Hart (48%), Altmire (44%). It sounds like the NRCC poll wasn't much better. Maybe not even as good.

Based on this CQ has bumped the race from Republican Favored to Leans Republican. So Hart is still favored. But it's a real race.

If I were Altmire's folks I'd certainly want to make the point that DeLay and Hastert put Hart on the Ethics Committee after they purged it of non-loyalists. They knew she would be a rubber stamp vote for DeLay and other House GOPers who got into trouble. That's telling.

Uh, I wrote about this a full 8 days ago! Nice to see I'm more than a week ahead of Josh Micah Marshall!

Eye or Mordor?

Poor, Rick Santorum. He can't seem to get anything right. Yesterday, this hit the news:

Embattled U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum said America has avoided a second terrorist attack for five years because the “Eye of Mordor” has been drawn to Iraq instead.

Santorum used the analogy from one of his favorite books, J.R.R. Tolkien's 1950s fantasy classic “Lord of the Rings,” to put an increasingly unpopular war in Iraq into terms any school kid could easily understand.

“As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else,” Santorum said, describing the tool the evil Lord Sauron used in search of the magical ring that would consolidate his power over Middle-earth.

Let me say upfront that I never read any of the Tolkien books. I knew some guys in High School (25 years ago) who inhaled that stuff but it never really snagged me. Back then I wanted to be Chet Baker without the nasty heroin addiction.

In any case, the Tolkein fans the world over over at have begun to analyse Rick's literary reference. From Mother Jones:

Really, Santorum should have known better. By invoking LOTR, he was inviting the scrutiny of hordes of Tolkien fans, who, sure enough, are unleashing their fantasy-lit fury on him. First off, Santorum called it the Eye of Mordor, when it's really the Eye of Sauron.

And this was one of Rick's favorite books?

Proof they're getting nervous in the Hart Camp

From CQ magazine:

Eastern Pennsylvania is recognized as a key battleground in this year’s campaign for House control. There are three highly competitive races in suburban Philadelphia and one in northeastern Pennsylvania. The populous, Democratic-leaning Philadelphia area is key to Democrats’ hopes of electing Edward G. Rendell to a second term as governor and state Treasurer Bob Casey to the Senate over Republican incumbent Rick Santorum.

But western Pennsylvania, or at least the Pittsburgh-area 4th District, is getting into the act as well. The contest between three-term Republican Rep. Melissa A. Hart and Democrat Jason Altmire, a former hospital association executive and congressional aide, now appears sufficiently competitive to merit a change to CQPolitics.com’s rating of the race, to Leans Republican from Republican Favored.

While the “Leans” rating means Hart still maintains an edge in the race, it also means that Altmire is waging a tougher fight than earlier expected and that an upset is a more plausible possibility. The previous “Favored” rating suggested that Altmire was a more distinct underdog.

Interesting. Looks like it's a real race. Here's the important part:

According to a filing with the Federal Election Commission, the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) on Tuesday reported spending $163,000 to produce and air a television ad opposing Altmire — one day after the House GOP campaign committee reported spending $10,569 to poll the district. (Altmire recently released a poll taken for his campaign that showed him trailing Hart by just 48 percent to 44 percent).

That's almost $175,000 for a "safe" seat? It puts a lie to any utterance coming from the Republicans about how they're "double digit" ahead of Altmire, doncha think?

CQ does some ad-analysis as well. It's fun to watch the rhetoric. Here's an example about a recent TV ad:

Echoing a theme used by numerous Democratic candidates nationwide, Altmire accuses the incumbent of voting in near-unanimity with Bush, whose popularity has sharply declined nationally and statewide in the two years since he was re-elected as president.

To which the Hart camp's response is described this way:

As for the charge that Hart is too closely tied to Bush, Myslinski said: “Jason Altmire can make whatever claims he wants about Melissa voting with George Bush. But the truth is, she votes with Pennsylvania’s 4th District 100 percent of the time. And that’s why she’ll be back in Congress.”

Notice Luke didn't deny the "near-unanimity" of Hart's voting record - instead he does what every politician does when faced with an uncomfortable reality. He simply changes the subject. "she votes with Pennsylvania’s 4th district 100 percent of the time"?? Or this one:

Altmire’s ad goes on to accuse Hart of supporting cuts in veterans programs, citing her April 2005 vote in favor of a budget resolution that was backed by most Republicans and opposed by all Democrats. It also claims Hart voted to cut student loan programs by $14 billion, citing the congresswoman’s support in November 2005 for another GOP-drafted budget bill.

It's "answered" by:

Hart campaign manager Luke Myslinski rejected Altmire’s accusations, stating that veterans’ spending has increased by $1,200 per veteran since 2000, the year Hart was elected. He also pointed to a Hart-sponsored amendment, attached to an overhaul of pension laws that was signed into law by Bush, that allows deposits to college savings plans to remain permanently tax-free.

In case you missed it, he changed the subject. Again. Whether Veteran's spending has increased in the last 6 years has little if anything to do with the April 2005 resolution, does it?

And if some kid doesn't have the cash to go to college, telling him or her that all the money he or she puts away into a savings plan is "tax free" is of little comfort. If there's no money for college, then how much money is going to be saved for college?

They must be shaking in their boots over there in Hart-Ville.

Good Night, folks.

Technorati Tags: "Jason Altmire", "Melissa Hart"

My lunch with Delano

A year and a half ago, KDKA political analyst Jon Delano and I sat at the Pittsburgh Hilton for a chat on politics and the blogosphere.

During it, he said that the blogosphere was, in a word, developing and he was quite skeptical of the validity of material flowing through it. Here's what I wrote:

The main problem inherent in the system is due to the fact that bloggers are free to write whatever they want – that there’s no test for truth. In mainstream journalism, however, assertions need to be checked and double checked for accuracy. A journalist, he said, would say, “I want to know it to be true.”

Today he and I had lunch at the cafeteria at Gateway center. For him it was the chili (with crackers) and for me the egg salad. I'm hoping the chili was as nice as my egg salad (so good you could plotz). Anyway, he's changed his views somewhat on the blogosphere. He's even got his own.

His views changed mostly because of the Lamont/Lieberman primary race in Connecticut. That race made him at least less skeptical of the power and role of the blogosphere in contemporary politics.

The main role of the blogs up in that race was to give credibility to Lamont as a challenger. Once he was seen as a credible challenger, then the more traditional news media began to pay attention. He said that blogs can identify races early on - that's one of their strengths.

It's obvious from what he said that there's still some room to go - while blogs do have more power than traditional news media wants to admit, they're not yet at the point where, for example, TV news producers read them regularly.

For the record, he frequently reads Drudge, the daily kos and (ahem) us.

He did say that it remains to be seen whether the local blogs will have an impact on the local races. So much of that plays on the perception of credibility that's created by TV news coverage. If a TV news producer can't be convinced that there's an actual race, then there's little or no coverage. What's required is evidence (number of TV ads, lots of yard signs, etc) to convince a news outlet to cover a race.

He did have a few questions about the blogosphere overall. Who's reading which blogs? Is it just liberals reading liberal blogs and conservatives conservative blogs? Are all those people just speaking to themselves?

He did have a word or two on the recent Casey/Santorum debates. He said that if anything they showed that while Casey tried to go on the attack, he just couldn't compete with Santorum in terms of fiery debate rhetoric. He couldn't match Rick's "anger." The more passionate Anti-Santorum folks, Delano said, tend to cringe when they hear Casey speak - they want him to be the "democratic Rick Santorum" with a little more sound and fury.

The ironic thing, he said, is that if Casey wins it'll be precisely because he's not Rick Santorum.

It was a good lunch, egg salad and all

Jon Delano

The Death of Habeas Corpus - Keith Olbermann

Here's the whole thing presented without comment (as if any were necessary).

We have lived as if in a trance.

We have lived as people in fear.

And now—our rights and our freedoms in peril—we slowly awake to learn that we have been afraid of the wrong thing.

Therefore, tonight have we truly become the inheritors of our American legacy.

For, on this first full day that the Military Commissions Act is in force, we now face what our ancestors faced, at other times of exaggerated crisis and melodramatic fear-mongering:

A government more dangerous to our liberty, than is the enemy it claims to protect us from.

We have been here before—and we have been here before led here—by men better and wiser and nobler than George W. Bush.

We have been here when President John Adams insisted that the Alien and Sedition Acts were necessary to save American lives, only to watch him use those acts to jail newspaper editors.

American newspaper editors, in American jails, for things they wrote about America.

We have been here when President Woodrow Wilson insisted that the Espionage Act was necessary to save American lives, only to watch him use that Act to prosecute 2,000 Americans, especially those he disparaged as “Hyphenated Americans,” most of whom were guilty only of advocating peace in a time of war.

American public speakers, in American jails, for things they said about America.

And we have been here when President Franklin D. Roosevelt insisted that Executive Order 9066 was necessary to save American lives, only to watch him use that order to imprison and pauperize 110,000 Americans while his man in charge, General DeWitt, told Congress: “It makes no difference whether he is an American citizen—he is still a Japanese.”

American citizens, in American camps, for something they neither wrote nor said nor did, but for the choices they or their ancestors had made about coming to America.

Each of these actions was undertaken for the most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons.

And each was a betrayal of that for which the president who advocated them claimed to be fighting.

Adams and his party were swept from office, and the Alien and Sedition Acts erased.

Many of the very people Wilson silenced survived him, and one of them even ran to succeed him, and got 900,000 votes, though his presidential campaign was conducted entirely from his jail cell.

And Roosevelt’s internment of the Japanese was not merely the worst blight on his record, but it would necessitate a formal apology from the government of the United States to the citizens of the United States whose lives it ruined.

The most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons.

In times of fright, we have been only human.

We have let Roosevelt’s “fear of fear itself” overtake us.

We have listened to the little voice inside that has said, “the wolf is at the door; this will be temporary; this will be precise; this too shall pass.”

We have accepted that the only way to stop the terrorists is to let the government become just a little bit like the terrorists.

Just the way we once accepted that the only way to stop the Soviets was to let the government become just a little bit like the Soviets.

Or substitute the Japanese.

Or the Germans.

Or the Socialists.

Or the Anarchists.

Or the Immigrants.

Or the British.

Or the Aliens.

The most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons.

And, always, always wrong.

“With the distance of history, the questions will be narrowed and few: Did this generation of Americans take the threat seriously, and did we do what it takes to defeat that threat?”

Wise words.

And ironic ones, Mr. Bush.

Your own, of course, yesterday, in signing the Military Commissions Act.

You spoke so much more than you know, Sir.

Sadly—of course—the distance of history will recognize that the threat this generation of Americans needed to take seriously was you.

We have a long and painful history of ignoring the prophecy attributed to Benjamin Franklin that “those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

But even within this history we have not before codified the poisoning of habeas corpus, that wellspring of protection from which all essential liberties flow.

You, sir, have now befouled that spring.

You, sir, have now given us chaos and called it order.

You, sir, have now imposed subjugation and called it freedom.

For the most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons.

And — again, Mr. Bush — all of them, wrong.

We have handed a blank check drawn against our freedom to a man who has said it is unacceptable to compare anything this country has ever done to anything the terrorists have ever done.

We have handed a blank check drawn against our freedom to a man who has insisted again that “the United States does not torture. It’s against our laws and it’s against our values” and who has said it with a straight face while the pictures from Abu Ghraib Prison and the stories of Waterboarding figuratively fade in and out, around him.

We have handed a blank check drawn against our freedom to a man who may now, if he so decides, declare not merely any non-American citizens “unlawful enemy combatants” and ship them somewhere—anywhere -- but may now, if he so decides, declare you an “unlawful enemy combatant” and ship you somewhere - anywhere.

And if you think this hyperbole or hysteria, ask the newspaper editors when John Adams was president or the pacifists when Woodrow Wilson was president or the Japanese at Manzanar when Franklin Roosevelt was president.

And if you somehow think habeas corpus has not been suspended for American citizens but only for everybody else, ask yourself this: If you are pulled off the street tomorrow, and they call you an alien or an undocumented immigrant or an “unlawful enemy combatant”—exactly how are you going to convince them to give you a court hearing to prove you are not? Do you think this attorney general is going to help you?

This President now has his blank check.

He lied to get it.

He lied as he received it.

Is there any reason to even hope he has not lied about how he intends to use it nor who he intends to use it against?

“These military commissions will provide a fair trial,” you told us yesterday, Mr. Bush, “in which the accused are presumed innocent, have access to an attorney and can hear all the evidence against them.”

"Presumed innocent," Mr. Bush?

The very piece of paper you signed as you said that, allows for the detainees to be abused up to the point just before they sustain “serious mental and physical trauma” in the hope of getting them to incriminate themselves, and may no longer even invoke The Geneva Conventions in their own defense.

"Access to an attorney," Mr. Bush?

Lieutenant Commander Charles Swift said on this program, Sir, and to the Supreme Court, that he was only granted access to his detainee defendant on the promise that the detainee would plead guilty.

"Hearing all the evidence," Mr. Bush?

The Military Commissions Act specifically permits the introduction of classified evidence not made available to the defense.

Your words are lies, Sir.

They are lies that imperil us all.

“One of the terrorists believed to have planned the 9/11 attacks,” you told us yesterday, “said he hoped the attacks would be the beginning of the end of America.”

That terrorist, sir, could only hope.

Not his actions, nor the actions of a ceaseless line of terrorists (real or imagined), could measure up to what you have wrought.

Habeas corpus? Gone.

The Geneva Conventions? Optional.

The moral force we shined outwards to the world as an eternal beacon, and inwards at ourselves as an eternal protection? Snuffed out.

These things you have done, Mr. Bush, they would be “the beginning of the end of America.”

And did it even occur to you once, sir — somewhere in amidst those eight separate, gruesome, intentional, terroristic invocations of the horrors of 9/11 -- that with only a little further shift in this world we now know—just a touch more repudiation of all of that for which our patriots died --- did it ever occur to you once that in just 27 months and two days from now when you leave office, some irresponsible future president and a “competent tribunal” of lackeys would be entitled, by the actions of your own hand, to declare the status of “unlawful enemy combatant” for -- and convene a Military Commission to try -- not John Walker Lindh, but George Walker Bush?

For the most vital, the most urgent, the most inescapable of reasons.

And doubtless, Sir, all of them—as always—wrong.

Keith Olbermann - American Hero. How long will it take for them to drag him away?

Why Are These Men Smiling?

They're smiling because Bush is signing a bill that shreds the Geneva Conventions, pisses on the Bill of Rights, and terminates the 800 year-old right of habeas corpus.

You're looking at the happy face of authoritarianism -- a smiley face sticker on the toe of the boot on your neck.

Have a nice day! :-)

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

How much does a pitchfork cost these days anyway?

J.D. Prose on the Altmire/Hart Race

If you haven't already read it, go take a look. It's generally favorable to Altmire - and if anything it should be sending a message to the campaign team up there in Hartville. Here's how Prose starts:

Democrat Jason Altmire's campaign is attracting the help of comedian Al Franken and former presidential candidates U.S. Sen. John Kerry and Howard Dean.

Altmire claims to have raised more money than any challenger to a U.S. House incumbent in western Pennsylvania history.

And, at least one political Web site, Nationaljournal.com, has listed the race as one of the 50 House districts that might change parties next month, albeit it's only in at No. 45.

All this in a district that was supposed to be easy sailing for the Republicans. Prose does point out the huge advantage Hart has - the $840,000 difference in campaign contributions.

"It's certainly reassuring to see the great deal of support out there for the congresswoman," Hart campaign manager Luke Myslinski said in what might be the understatement of the political season.

Hmm - I wondered this morning how he defines "out there" so I took a look at the data at opensecrets.org. Very interesting.

The numbers are a little different from Prose's, probably owing to the fact that that opensecrets' data is based on the FEC filing documents - there's always a time lapse there.

If I am reading the page correctly, Hart received a majority (about 54%) of her contributions not from local individual contributors, but from Political Action Committees (PACs). And large majority of those PACs (about 86%) were business PACs.

Nothing wrong with that, of course. But when the Hart campaign is saying "out there" to illustrate where she's getting her funding, you have to realize that for them, a large chunk (in this case about 46%) of "out there" means business PACs.

Jason Altmire, on the other hand, has raised a majority (72%) of his campaign funds from individual people - not PACs. Take a look.

Anyway, back to the article.

Altmire's second television ad has started to run, and he vowed that he would compete with Hart on the all-important airwaves for the next four weeks. "We're going to be able to go TV all the way through" Nov. 7, he said.

Hart, meanwhile, has been running several ads simultaneously - her latest goes after Altmire's "lies" - and even went door-to-door in Beaver County Monday. Hart and her campaign staff have insisted she's leading Altmire by double digits, but they've refused to release any poll results.

I still gotta wonder why they've refused to release the poll numbers - what is she hiding? I mean wouldn't you want everyone to know that you're double digits ahead? Why not release the data for everyone to see?

Here's Prose's ending:

Political analyst G. Terry Madonna, director of the Center for Politics and Public Affairs at Franklin and Marshall College in Lancaster, said the 4th District race, like many races, is more about voters' attitudes on the Iraq war, President Bush and the Republican Party than any one candidate.

Incumbents "are running hard and running scared if they're Republicans," he said.

"It would have to be a seismic eruption for that seat to shift," Madonna said of the 4th District. "This would truly be one of those (upsets) if (Altmire) wins."

Altmire, however, said he's more confident than ever. Hart, he said, "should be worried if she's not." [emphasis added]

So can we assume Hart's running scared? She won't release the data that "shows" she's in a double digit lead. And tell me again when is that debate between Altmire and Hart? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

Congresswoman Melissa Hart - Jason Altmire. Who has momentum and who's running scared? I'm just asking.

51 things Rick Santorum DOESN"T want you to know

The Bob Casey Campaign provides you with a handy list. I've reproduced it here:


1. Rick was the only member of the entire U.S. Congress to go to Florida and intrude at Terri Schiavo’s deathbed. (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 3/30/05)

2. Rick voted against a minimum wage increase 13 times. (Vote 344, 7/31/95; Vote 519, 10/27/95; Vote 54, 3/27/96; Vote 183, 7/9/96; Vote 184, 7/9/96; Vote 278, 9/22/98; Vote 77, 3/25/99; Vote 94, 4/28/99; Vote 239, 7/30/99; Vote 356, 11/9/99; Vote 76, 4/7/00; Vote 26, 3/7/05; Vote 179, 6/21/06)

3. Rick has voted with President Bush 98% of the time. (Congressional Quarterly, Pres. Vote Support Analysis)

4. "Making people struggle a little bit is not necessarily the worst thing" was Rick’s defense of his careless vote against increased child care funding. (Congressional Quarterly, 9/12/03)

5. Rick wants to allow states to outlaw all forms of birth control, even for married couples. (Newsweek, 12/27/04)

6. Rick on birth control: "I'm not a believer in birth control…I don't think it works. I think it's harmful to women." (Newsweek, 12/27/04; CN8, 7/28/05)

7. Santorum has repeatedly voted against increasing funding for Pell Grants that provide needed financial aid to lower-income students. (Vote 220, 5/25/95; Vote 68, 3/17/05; Vote 51, 3/11/04; Vote 331, 9/9/03; Vote 339, 9/10/03)

8. "Yes, I am something of a salesman for homeschooling and cyber-schooling" is Rick's description of his public education plan. (It Takes a Family; Patriot News, 7/31/05)

9. Pennsylvanians have paid $55,000 in local tax money to cyber-school Rick's children at their estate in Virginia. (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 11/14/04)

10. Rick's thoughts on college education for women: "The notion that college education is a cost-effective way to help poor, low-skill, unmarried mothers with high school diplomas or GEDs move up the economic ladder is just wrong." (It Takes A Family, p.138)

11. Rick's disrespect for two-paycheck families: "In far too many families with young children, both parents are working, when, if they really take an honest look at the budget, they might confess that both of them really don't need to." (It Takes a Family, p.94)

12. Rick has repeatedly voted against the Family and Medical Leave Act, which allows Americans to take time off from their jobs and take care of their sick children or other family members. (Vote 393, 11/13/91; Vote 22, 2/3/93; Vote 443, 9/30/92)

13. Rick opposes the right to privacy: "The right to privacy doesn't exist, in my opinion, in the U.S. Constitution." (Associated Press, 4/22/03)

14. Fly Rod & Reel magazine has named Rick one of their "dirty dozen" senators for his votes against clean water, and he has supported Bush's lowering of standards for arsenic in water. (CNN, 4/25/01)

15. "Yes, there will be species that go extinct, but other species will come along and take their place" was Rick's response to his vote to end all enforcement of the Endangered Species Act. (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 5/1/95; Vote 106, 3/16/95)

16. Rick founded a small "charity" organization, which is subsidizing his campaign staff and campaign activity with tax-exempt dollars. (Philadelphia Daily News, 2/21/06)

17. His reelection campaign is staffed in large part by his taxpayer-funded Senate and conference office employees. (Roll Call, 7/25/06)

18. Rick has accepted 15 corporate flights, allowing companies like Wal-Mart to funnel support to him since they can't legally make cash donations. (Philadelphia Inquirer, 5/3/06; Santorum FEC Reports, 04-06)

19. Since Rick has been in leadership, our national debt has ballooned to $8 trillion. (US Department of the Treasury, 7/14/06)

20. Big oil companies, due to Rick's support, will receive billions in tax breaks over the next five years, while the price of gas has doubled since he entered the Senate. Remember that when you fill up your tank. (Vote 213, 7/29/05; Vote 332, 11/17/05)

21. Santorum also raised more drug company money than any member of Congress - $298,327 this cycle alone. It's enough to give you a headache. (Campaign Finance Reports)

22. Rick voted against an amendment to negotiate better prescription drug prices under Medicare. (Vote 60, 3/17/05)

23. Rick has been dubbed the "King of the K Street Project" due to his intimate connections with special interest lobbyists. (Washington Post, 8/2/02)

24. Rick has pocketed more lobbyist, special-interest money than any other politician in the country. (Center for Responsive Politics)

25. Another piece of Rick's shady financial history: this year, he bought two apartments at $1 a piece and then sold one a few months later for over $100,000. (Centre County Property Records; The Times-Tribune, 6/15/06)

26. Rick helped pass CAFTA, a bill that will ship hundreds of thousands of American jobs overseas. Since 2001, Pennsylvania has lost 181,000 manufacturing jobs. (Vote 170, 6/30/05)

27. Santorum talks tough on immigration but has opposed tougher penalties for employers who hire illegal immigrants. (Vote #96, 4/30/96; Vote #40, 5/23/06)

28. Rick Santorum has voted against increased funding for first responders, port security, and other vital measures. The 9/11 Commission gave Bush and Congress five Fs and 12 Ds for their slow progress. (S Con Res 95, 3/11/04; HR 3338, 12/6/01; HR 4567, 9/9/04; HJ Res 2, 1/16/03)

29. Rick voted seven times against hiring more border patrol agents. (Vote #3, 1/16/03; Vote #119, 4/3/03; Vote #291, 7/22/03; Vote #169, 9/9/04; Vote #182, 9/14/04; Vote #64, 3/17/05; Vote #95, 4/26/06)

30. Rick doesn't think seniors should be allowed to buy cheaper medicine from Canada. He even voted to have border patrol agents confiscate prescription medicine bought in Canada for individual use. (The Hill, 7/12/06)

31. Rick has voted 14 times to cut Medicare. (Vote 69, 4/17/91; Vote 39, 3/4/92; Vote 609, 11/22/93; Vote 232, 5/25/95; Vote 296, 6/29/95; Vote 556, 10/28/95; Vote 156, 5/23/96; Vote 159, 6/13/96; Vote 92, 5/23/97; Vote 96, 6/5/97; Vote 130, 6/25/97; Vote 209, 7/31/97; Vote 303, 11/3/05; Vote 10, 2/2/06)

32. In 1990, Rick won his first election by attacking his opponent for living in Virginia. Today, Rick and his family live in a home valued at almost $1,000,000 in Leesburg, Virginia, even while he insists a two-bedroom home in Penn Hills, Pennsylvania, is his primary residence. (American Prospect, 3/1/06)

33. Santorum has opposed billions in federal funding for Veterans Affairs and has voted down mandatory funding for veterans' health care. (Vote #90, 4/12/05; Vote #89, 4/12/05; Vote #145, 6/23/04)

34. Despite talking big on health care, 714,000 Pennsylvanians have lost their health insurance since Rick became a Senate leader. (Bureau of Labor Statistics)

35. Arguing about his $37,000 pay raise, Santorum said, "if the people of Pennsylvania saw my record on the pay raise, they would stand up and applaud, not complain that I voted for three pay increases...." (Pennsylvania Press Club, 8/28/06)

36, 37, 38. Three times Rick has voted to raise his own pay, after he said in 1990, "Whatever the salary is when I walk into office…that's what I'll take…I won't take one additional penny…." (Vote 360, 12/7/01; Vote 242, 11/13/02; Vote 406, 10/23/03; AP, 11/7/90)

39. Rick Santorum led efforts last spring to eliminate overtime pay protections. (Vote 27, 3/7/05)

40. Rick talks tough on lawsuit reform and supports a $250,000 cap on malpractice suits, yet he testified on behalf of his wife when she sued her chiropractor for $500,000. (AP, 12/15/99; ABC Primetime Live, 11/11/05)

41. After Hurricane Katrina, Rick called for penalties on many of the suffering victims who could not afford to evacuate. (WTAE-TV, 9/4/05)

42. Rick Santorum authored a bill to dismantle the National Weather Service. (Palm Beach Post, 4/21/05)

43. Rick is considered the #1 proponent of Bush's Social Security privatization scheme. "It's a very small amount of money skimmed off the top" was how Rick explained the plan to privatize your Social Security tax money. (National Journal Congress Daily, 2/22/05; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 2/20/05)

44. Rick's plan for Social Security would also raise the retirement age to at least 70, and he even said, "I'd go even farther if I could." (La Salle University, 10/18/94)

45. Rick has raised over $1,000,000 in donations from oil, gas, chemical, and mining industries. In fact, Rick has raised more money from gas companies than anyone in Washington other than Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. (Center for Responsive Politics; www.opensecrets.org/industries )

46. Rick appears to subsidize his lifestyle with campaign contributions. He pays for fancy hardware, ice cream, and groceries, plus has 66 charges to a Starbucks four miles from his Virginia estate. (Philadelphia Daily News, 2/21/06)

47. Rick on our local schools: "It's amazing that so many kids turn out to be fairly normal, considering the weird socialization they get in public schools." He has gone on to consistently oppose funding important initiatives like reducing class size. (It Takes a Family, p.386; Vote #148, 6/27/00; Vote #103, 5/15/01; Vote #379, 10/14/03)

48. Rick Santorum once told a group of young people to "not be afraid to be intolerant." (The Culture of Life World Youth Day, 7/22/02)

49. Rick was once an advocate for teaching "intelligent design" theory as an alternative to teaching evolution in schools. He has flip-flopped on the issue for this election. Maybe his position "evolved." (Scranton Times-Tribune, 12/23/05)

50. Rick Santorum is still fixated on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He ran to the media over chemicals no more toxic than "household pesticides" while the military, CIA, and White House acknowledged they were no longer useable. (Washington Post, 6/22/06; CNN, 6/29/2006)

51. Despite the world making North Korea a top priority, Rick discounted the threat and said Kim Jong Il "doesn't want to die. He wants to watch NBA basketball." Are you serious? This is how Rick makes threat assessments? (The Patriot-News, 7/11/06)

EVENTS!

Tuesday, Oct. 17, 2006 - TODAY!




Pgh. League of Young Voters Education Fund: Monthly Meeting With Special Guest Mayor Luke Ravenstahl
When: Tuesday, October 17th, 7 PM
Where: Grand Hall, Union Project, 801 N. Negley Avenue, Highland Park
What: A spiced up monthly meeting!

Because the new mayor needs to know what young Pittsburghers care about...

Information: 412.728.2197 or Omar: pghmusicculture@gmail.com
http://www.pittsburgh.indyvoter.org/blog

FYI: I was invited to be one of the community leaders to ask a question, but it looks like I won't be able to make it. If I was going to ask a question, it would have been the following:

"Mayor Ravenstahl, you were quoted in the Post-Gazette as saying you considered yourself to be 'socially conservative.' In that same article Councilman Jim Motznik said that he thought you were 'pro life.' Can you please tell me if you are anti choice and if that's why you voted against the Bubble Zone ordinance and how your social conservatism would affect you postions as mayor?"

(The League is looking for some dope data entry people! Wanting to volunteer, but hate talking to peeps about politics? Shoot Nish at nish@indyvoter.org an email with your availability.)

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Rally at Senator Santorum's Office: Save Social Security!
When: Wednesday, October 18th, 1:30 PM,
Where: Senator Santorum's Office, 100 W. Station Square Drive, Station Square, Landmarks Building, Suite 250.

Part of PA Action's efforts to protect Social Security. I hear that former Senate candidate Chuck Pennacchio will be in attendance.

Thursday, October 19, 2006

SEAD Meeting (South End Active Democrats)
When: Thursday, October 19th
Where: Larry's Roadhouse at Rt 51 and Whited Street in Overbrook.

Members of the Casey Campaign will talk about the plan for victory. 6:30 if you want dinner. Meeting will begin promptly at 7 pm. Democratic Candidates and campaigns welcome. Bring signs, buttons, and literature.

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Progress Pittsburgh : PRE-ELECTION BONANZA
When: Tuesday, October 24, 6 PM
Where: 5151 penn gallery, 5151 Penn Ave in Garfield
Why: information + voters = power.

PRE-ELECTION BONANZA to bring you everything you need to know to get educated for and involved in the upcoming general election. Please join them with the Partisan Project show for an evening of information and informal conversation. representatives from organizations like the League of Young Voters will be there and some campaigns might also be present.

Thursday, October 26, 2006

Pittsburgh Interfaith Impact Network Public Action - Public Transit!
When: Thursday, October 26, 7 - 8:30 pm
Where: Petra International Ministries, 235 Eastgate Drive, (former East Hills Shopping Center--near intersection of Robinson Blvd. & Frankstown Ave.)

Adequate and dedicated state funding for public transportation will be one of the major issues addressed by the Pittsburgh Interfaith Impact Network (PIIN) at its Public Action. PIIN expects an attendance of 2,000 or more. Key public officials will be invited to commit to specific actions furthering our transit funding goals. All supporters of this effort are urged to attend.

Information: bsimpson@tmail.com , 412-322-6419 or Wallace Watson
wallwat1@verizon.net , 412-371-8138

Santorum and Schiavo - Filling in the Blanks

The topic of Terri Schiavo came up (briefly) during one of yesterday's debates. Here's how the P-G reported it:

In response to the first question from one of the KYW panelists, Mr. Santorum said he had no second thoughts about his decision to visit the family of Terri Schiavo, the late Florida woman whose feeding tube was disconnected after a legal battle in which Congress stepped in to give special jurisdiction to the federal courts in an issue that had been under a state review.

"I went there to pray with the family ... and I'm not ashamed of having done that," Mr. Santorum said, noting that Ms. Schiavo's parents were his Pennsylvania constituents.

And John McIntire:

9:04 A.M. Tricky Ricky is still trying to justify exploiting the Terry Schiavo issue... and that is freaking hysterical. I think Rick will make the best darn lobbyist money can buy. He said she was in a "questionable vegetative state." Thank you Dr. Santorum.

But let's remember what we here at 2PJ wrote way back when. Rick Santorum, while he did cancel one public event "out of respect" for the Schiavo family, made it to a fundraiser that netted him a cool quarter million dollars while he was down there. As Salon.com wrote at the time:

Despite the fact that the Terri Schiavo right-to-die case didn't prove to be the political gold mine some members of the GOP thought it would be, Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., is laughing all the way to the bank. After scoring some free publicity outside Schiavo's Pinellas Park, Fla., hospice last month, Santorum distanced himself from the issue, saying on March 31 that he didn't know "how anyone can believe that this is a political winner, if you look at any of the polls," and that he was actually in Florida for "other meetings."

It turns out that those "other meetings" were fundraising events for the senator's '06 reelection bid, hosted by such notables as Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., and executives from Revlon and Outback Steakhouse. According to Monday's Philadelphia Inquirer, Santorum made the trip to Florida expressly for fundraising; his finance director Rob Bickhart said the trip netted the campaign about $250,000.

Schiavo's death did put a small dent in Santorum's schedule at the time -- the Inquirer noted that he was slated to speak at a town hall meeting in Tampa to promote President Bush's proposed Social Security plan, but that it was cancelled "out of respect" for Schiavo's family. But with the death watch in full swing, when it came to Santorum's raking in the campaign contributions, apparently it was business as usual.

Rick Santorum - Business as usual.

Is Missy Hart Push-Polling?

I normally don't spend much time worrying about what's in the comments sections of this blog - not a big deal, just a personal choice. But get a gander and the comment in this posting.

Whigsboy, bless his bloggersoul, wrote this:

Speaking of Hart, if what I report here is true, and I'll try to confirm, Missy is truly in HUGE trouble...

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/10/16/83235/936

Now what did he write at the dailykos? After a few words about an Altmire fundraiser this past Friday, Whigsboy wrote:

Then, on Sunday, as the Steelers were making the Chiefs look more like junior squaws, I got a call from a polling outfit. It was obvious early in the call that it was focused on the Hart/Altmire race.

For most of the call, I thought it was an independent poll. But, suddenly, in the midst of a series of questions about factors that might influence how I plan to vote, things CHANGED dramatically.

"Partisan control of Congress is at stake in this election," the pollster asserted. "If Democrats win control of the House, Nancy Pelosi, a liberal Democrat from San Francisco, will become the Speaker of the House and Democrats are going to raise taxes, cut and run from Iraq, and grant amnesty to illegal immigrants. Will that make you more or less likely to vote for Jason Altmire or Melissa Hart?"

If this is true, then ladies and gentlemen Missy Hart (or someone sympathetic with her politics) is push polling in the area.

I had a thought: Missy's insisting that she's double-digits ahead of Jason Altmire. If she is indeed that far ahead, then why the push polling?

Melissa Hart, Push Polling

Did Rick Santorum accuse Casey of taking Abramoff money?

At the tail end of the debate this evening, Rick Santorum accused Bob Casey of taking Abramoff money.

Here's the story.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) is slamming Democratic Senate hopeful Bob Casey Jr. for not returning money given to him by Edward Ayoob, a former Jack Abramoff associate.

Ayoob, who once worked with Abramoff at the law firm Greenberg Traurig, gave Casey $1,500 in 2005, Federal Election Commission reports show. That money was contributed in two installments in June and September, more than a year after Abramoff left Greenberg Traurig and several months after Ayoob left the firm.[emphasis added]

Oh. After Abramoff left Greenberg Traurig. And yet the next paragraph of the story goes like this:

“Every time the Casey campaign attempts to discuss the ethics issues, we’re going to remind him that he’s taken money directly linked to Jack Abramoff,” NRSC spokesman Brian Nick said, suggesting that Ayoob is likely to figure into future “messaging” and that his contributions could be the subject of campaign ads. “You cross that bridge when you come to it,” Nick said.[emphasis added]

So how can he say that it's money taken "directly linked" to Abramoff?

How does the Casey campaign respond?

“Mr. Ayoob had no association with Abramoff when he made the contributions, and he has not been implicated in any wrongdoing,” Casey campaign spokesman Larry Smar said. “This is a smokescreen to cover up the real ethical problems of Rick Santorum’s closed-door lobbyist meetings and the K Street Project. We have no intention of returning the contribution.”

Good for them. I'll keep looking here.

Later

Casey Santorum Debate

7:00 just started. This time Casey and Santorum aren't within arms reach.

The first question was on North Korea - Rick turned it into a discussion of Iran. He claimed that Casey isn't in favor of Bunker Busting bombs or missile defense system. Casey said that isn't true.

7:10 Rick does it again. None of the answers Casey gave rate as "answers" for Rick. So then he claims "two for two." Two questions and two non-answers.

7:13 Rick does it again. "Three for three." Rick mentions a website that says that Casey comments on the "bunker busting boms" Looking for it now.

7:18 Casey's doing much better this time out. Rick's under much more self control. Maybe he took his meds today. However, in the discussion of the "Halliburton loophole" he was still got a little condescensing - Rick will always be Rick.

So far the two guys aren't stepping on eachother's lines this time.

Santorum Question for Casey: The rules state (so said George Stephanopolous) each guy get's one question. Rick starts by saying he has two questions. Rick breaks the rules. The first question was on caps of medical lawsuits. The second question is about importing pharmaceuticals. He asked why Casey wants to "destroy the pharmaceutical industry."

Casey questionfor Santorum. Casey will be releasing 5 years worth of personal income tax returns. Santorum says he will be "happy" to do that. He added that it will be "embarrassing given the amount of money I have."

7:32 Social Security Question. Rick says there's a clear difference between he and Casey. Rick believes that Social Security is "in crisis in the long term." He's then (I think) barely referenced that "everyone got distracted" after Clinton's initial work on Social Security 7 years ago. What happened then that got everyone distracted? MONICA LEWINSKY.

7:36 Rick is in favor of privatizing Social Security.

Rick and Casey disagree on how many gun dealers are in Philadelphia. Casey says 5,200. Rick says no.

Question from the website: Why do ads have to be so negative? Rick complains that Casey's ads are negative. Casey points out that "if there's anyone who knows about negative ads, it's Rick Santorum."

Weaving some Santorum Threads

From Slate.com. Jesse Stanchak has a "media round-up" type piece that begins with this:

The New York Times leads with the GOP's decision to refocus campaign resources from Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, to Senate races with rosier prospects, leaving DeWine to fend for himself and, in the paper's view, effectively conceding the seat.

Interesting. But the good stuff happens further down the page. Take a look:

The LAT off-leads with a piece on the efforts of social conservatives to save Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa. in the November elections. The NYT's lead story depicted Santorum's seat as one the GOP is prepared to lose and despite its misleading slug, ("GOP on a Mission to Save Santorum") the LAT story is about a grass-roots effort to aid the ailing Senator, not a high-level move to bolster the campaign.

Details! I wanna see details!

Here's the NYTimes article Stanchak mentions. And what it says:

National Republicans are no longer running advertisements in three districts where they once thought they had a chance to take over Democratic-held seats — in South Carolina, West Virginia and Ohio — as well as a district in Arizona now held by a Republican. The party has not broadcast any advertising in four days on behalf of Representative Chris Chocola, one of three Indiana Republicans who polls suggest are headed for defeat, though Republican officials said that does not mean they have written off Mr. Chocola’s seat.

Even before this development, Republicans had been bracing for the defeat of three sitting Republican senators: Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Conrad Burns of Montana and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, based on polling. [emphasis added]

Bracing for the defeat of Rick Santorum.

There's a lot of confusing stuff floating around. Even Santorum's favorite reporter, Brett Lieberman, had a piece in the Patriot-News that began with this:

National Republican leaders remain hopeful that U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum can turn around his struggling campaign, but they might have already written off the Pennsylvania race to Democrat Robert P. Casey Jr., if their checkbooks are any indication.

Neither the National Republican Committee nor the National Republican Senatorial Committee has reserved time at Pennsylvania television stations for "independent expenditure" ads supporting Santorum, R-Pa. Neither committee has spent any money on such ads for Santorum, the GOP's No. 3 leader in the Senate.

It's not that cut and dry, though. Rick's still got a ton of money.

A political analyst speculated that the national committee's lack of spending in the Pennsylvania Senate race reflects a desire to concentrate on other critical contests, and recognition that Santorum's campaign has raised a great deal of money.

"The truth probably rests a little with both sides," said Chris Borick, a political scientist at Muhlenberg College in Allentown.

"I would be shocked if the strategists in the party are writing off the campaign," he said.

Ok. So how much does Senator Man-on-Dog have?

Despite trailing in polls, Santorum has raised more than $20 million and has enjoyed a 2-1 cash advantage over Casey.

That's a lot of money.

What are the grassroots doing to help out Lil Ricky? Here's the article mentioned at Slate.com. I think the point from Slate.com is well taken. None of the "help" described in the article is coming from the RNC. By the way the piece, by Janet Hook, sums up the race very nicely:

If 2006 turns into the electoral romp for Democrats that many analysts now are predicting, a loss by Santorum would be a signifier of the end of that Republican revolution.

If Democrats are unable to defeat Santorum, they are unlikely to win a majority in the Senate, which Republicans control 55 to 45.

Just so you know.

The article points out that Rick's getting help from Paul Weyrick, an organization called "Let Freedom Ring" (a 501 (c)(4) non-profit organization), the American Family Association of Pennsylvania. And, the Pennsylvania Pastors Network is an organization name to keep an eye out for.

Hanna's group has set up a network of conservative pastors around the state to mobilize churchgoing voters. Although it cannot by law endorse a candidate, the Pastors Network of Pennsylvania has enlisted nearly 1,000 pastors in voter-registration and get-out-the vote drives.

"I think this race is drawing very, very close," said Hanna. "The deciding factor may be which set of supporters is more motivated to turn out."

Of course they can't endorse a particular candidate. So the guy who said this:

"I think it's important for people across the country to recognize how important it is not only to pay attention but to get engaged in this race, whatever way they can," said Colin Hanna, head of Let Freedom Ring, a conservative group based in Pennsylvania. "If Rick Santorum were to lose, it would be cited as a turning point in the social conservative movement."

Forms a group of similarly minded pastors to get out the vote. Who do you think they're pulling for?

So to sum up. Rick's got a ton of money, though he's not getting much (if any) from the RNC. Republican bigwigs are "bracing" for Santorum's defeat and religious conservatives from around the country are going to be working hard to defend him in order to supprt the "social conservative movement."

Do I have that right?

Colin McNickle on Chelsa Wagner and (briefly) Hart and Santorum

Take a look. The article has a few surprises. First off in the 22nd Legislative district he likes the Democrat in the race - Chelsa Wagner.

Chelsa Wagner dropped by the Trib offices Wednesday last. And if she's representative of a new breed of Western Pennsylvania Democrat, well, let's just say we all should be encouraged.

There is, however, a caveat. More on that later.

Ms. Wagner, 29, vibrant, engaging and a Rachael Ray look-alike at just the right angle, is challenging Republican incumbent Michael Diven for the 22nd Legislative District seat. She should prevail, easily, given her smarts and significant public service talents and his ignorance and unsophisticated public-disserving nincompoopery.

And he doesn't like the Republican in the race - Michael Diven:

Mr. Diven, 36, was late Allegheny County Commissioner Tom Foerster's occasional driver. He's a former Democrat perhaps best known these days for having friends in low places -- six feet under, to be more precise. He yanked his formal GOP re-election bid when the names of more than few dead people showed up on his nominating petitions. But he signed up as a write-in candidate and won the Republican nomination anyway.

Who would've guessed?

After dancing this dance a little, he ends the piece with this:

As an aside, Wagner may dance the Rationalization Rumba but at least she has the courage to say she's hardly enamored of the North Shore Connector. U.S. Reps. Mike Doyle, Melissa Hart and Tim Murphy and Sen. Rick Santorum -- all previously announced connector aficionados -- have refused the Trib's and KQV Radio's challenge to publicly state their current position prior to the election.

Chickens.

There it is - Colin McNickle, he of gravelly voice and strict conservative bona fides, calls Melissa Hart and Rick Santorum "chickens."

The Debate: Crackhead Ricky Vs. Stoner Bobby

Men Behaving Badly

If you watched the debate last night between US Sen. Rick Santorum (R-VA) and Pennsylvania Treasurer Robert P. Casey Jr. (D-PA) you saw a clash of styles more than a deliberation of ideas.

There was no discussion.

On the one side, you had Crackhead Ricky -- the snarling Pitt Bull. He sputtered and barked and damn near foamed at the mouth.

On the side, you had Stoner Bobby -- just a little too amused by the whole show. He fixated on a couple of key themes and was fuzzy around the edges on the other stuff.

Crackhead Ricky came ready to go in for the kill. Down in the polls, he was the dangerous cornered dog taking any advantage in the attack. But in the off election years, Ricky has been all too willing to pee on the legs of the average Pennsylvanian. He's said too many crazy things about working moms, public schools and pedophile priests that don't jib with what most voters think. And, he's chained to a sinking administration and holds a top leadership position in one of the most corrupt legislative branches on record -- he just can't get off the pipe. You almost feel sorry for the guy when he bemoans the fact that all his frantic yelping and hustle for the Far Right and himself have not gotten him further in the polls. He seems genuinely bewildered that he just may lose this election.

Then there's Bob. Casey can be maddening in his repetition and lack of zeal. He does appear to coast at times, relying on the audience to agree with his look of bemusement at the wild senator when a sharp, pointed response is called for. The shame is that there is some real differences in these two that aren't about style that may have been missed in all the theatrics of last night's debate. Santorum is off the reservation on so many issues including Iraq, worker's rights, birth control, public schools, and the intrusion of religion into government and private lives. He is also the King of K Street and the friend of every lobbyist in DC. Casey's positions are just more in tune with what the average Pennsylvanian thinks.

He cares about social security, the environment, a decent minimum wage, and healthcare. He won't claim to have found the "missing" weapons of mass destruction or hold camp outside of Terri Schiavo's bed. He's the mainstream alternative to the rabid extremist that is our Lil Ricky. If only he would show some f*cking energy (we get a little tired of making excuses for him, even if he is our "friend.")

So that's your choice, folks.

This country has headed down a dark and dangerous alley. Ricky is the frantic crackhead against the wall -- twitching and running his mouth off a mile a minute -- trying to get us to believe his shit one mo' time when we already know he's mugged those Penn Hills kids.

It's time for us to get out of the alley, turn the corner, and meet up with Bobby and the rest of our friends on the main street.

It's time we get Pennsylvania (and our country) out of the dark and back into the light.

Rick Santorum and Americans for Tax Reform

I was just about to hit the hay, when I spotted this.

A long-awaited report by the Senate Finance Committee accuses Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform and other Abramoff-linked non-profits with committing acts that are likely in violation of their tax-exempt status.

Guess who ATR named as "Hero of the Taxpayer" only a few weeks ago?

RICK SANTORUM

Take a look:

Senator Rick Santorum was honored today by Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) with its annual "Hero of the Taxpayer" award at a ceremony in the U.S. Capitol. The taxpayer advocacy organization presents the awards to members of both houses of Congress who vote with taxpayers on 85 percent or more of the issues tracked by ATR as important to taxpayers.

Hmm. Isn't Rick Santorum on the Senate Finance Committee? Why yes, yes he is.

So the Finance Committee is accusing ATR of commiting acts that may violated their tax-exempt status and ATR has named Rick Santorum "Hero of the Taxpayer."

Perhaps Bob Casey should bring this up at the next debate.

Rick Santorum and Americans for Tax Reform - an explanation is needed.

Thoughts on The Casey/Santorum Debate

Let's start with the P-G:

The two candidates interrupted each other, talked over each other, ignored time limits, ignored the moderator and generally stopped just short of playground name-calling. To say that KDKA-TV moderator Ken Rice lost control of today's debate between Republican U.S. Sen. Rick Santotrum and state Treasurer Robert P. Casey Jr. would be fallacious because it suggests that he ever had control of it to begin with.

In short: bad manners, but good political theater.

This might be a bit too harsh on Mr Rice. But Bill Toland is spot on with those two words: bad manners.

Unfortunately Rick Santorum was far less well-mannered than his opponent. He sputtered, he gesticulated wildly, he patronized. One of his main rhetorical devices, it seemed to me, was to deny that any answer given by Casey was indeed an answer. He'd then follow that up with the complaint that Casey hadn't bothered to offer up any answers at all.

Here's an example.

KDKA-TV Anchor Stacy Smith asked Democrat Bob Casey about what the US should do if it is confirmed that Iran and North Korea have developed nuclear weapons.

Bob Casey: "What we have to do, Stacy is what this administration has not done, which is to do everything possible to prevent Iran from developing nuclear capability and a nuclear bomb and the same holds true with regards to North Korea. But we didn't do that. This government, supported by Rick Santorum 98-percent of the time, the Bush agenda, here's what they did: They identified the three members of the axis of evil – North Korea, Iran and Iraq -- and they started with the weakest of the three, allowing the other two to advance in terms of nuclear capability. What we need is a tough policy.. we may need sanctions, but we have to put all of the options on the table – economic power, political power, diplomatic power and to make sure that we don't take off the table the military option…"

See all that? Keep it in mind for a few seconds. Ricky, however, ignored it and offered this as his reply:

Sen. Santorum: "What you see again is my opponent not providing any answer to the question. What he's done is describe the problem, complained about the administration. What I've done in the United States Senate is actually try to deliver on a policy that's gonna change the security of this country."

No, Rick. He did provide an answer. It may not have been the one you wanted to hear, but it was an answer - to assert otherwise is to insult the intelligence of the audience. Overall, the evening (Santorum's half, of course) was a portrait of a distressed man franticly trying to argue his way out of the rhetorical corner he'd mistakenly (though smugly) painted himself into.

Casey, on the other hand, while sometimes barely heard through Santorum's breathless and spittled sophistry, could have been more specific in his answers. Take a look at this:

KDKA's Jon Delano asks Bob Casey about critics claims that he's lazy, resting on the laurels of his father's work and reputation.

Casey: "If this race comes down to who's working harder and who does their job better – mine as state treasurer, his as a US senator – I'll win that battle. I'm not worried about that at all, because I get results and I've been fighting battles for the people of this state for a decade: cracking down on waste and fraud, being someone who's focused on fiscal responsibility. I've done things in the last 18 months as state treasurer that he should be working on in the US senate – like the question of health care… I've done this job well and I'll put that record up against anyone."

This is where Santorum poked a finger at Casey with the challenge:

"Why won't you look in the camera? Why won't you tell people that you don't show up for work? How many days have you been in your office? Why aren't you answering my question?"

Quite rude, of course, but Casey could have quietly ended the onslaught with a clear explanation of his job as Treasurer - on the other hand Ricky never really gave him the chance to answer.

I heard Jon Delano call it a draw on McIntire's radio show this evening. I wouldn't argue with that, to be completely honest. Casey could have given clearer and deeper answers, but at least he wasn't the zealot on stage impatiently proclaiming himself fit for the job.

If Rick thought tonight's performance was good enough to win over the 76% of voters who wouldn't put him at zero on a zero-to-ten scale, then he failed miserably.

Rick Santorum smug and ill-mannered when he debated Bob Casey, who could have been stronger.

The Board Rules: We will have a mayoral election in 2007

From the Post-Gazette:

In a unanimous vote taken late this afternoon, the three-member board decided the mayoral primary will be May 15, 2007, and the general election will be Nov. 6, 2007.

:-) Democracy prevails.

Hart and Santorum get spanked!

From J.D. Prose (I always wanted to know whether that's a pun for "legal writing" - eh probably not) at the Beaver County Times.

Times representatives have warned campaign officials for U.S. Rep. Melissa Hart and U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum to stop using the newspaper's home-delivery boxes as a drop-off for campaign literature.

Brochures for both candidates showed up in Times delivery boxes in Economy on Wednesday morning.

I'm sure it was all completely innocent.

Spokesmen for the groups responsible - People with Hart and the Republican State Committee's Republican Federal Committee of PA - Victory 2006 - apologized for the incidents and blamed them on overzealous volunteers.

Typical Republican reaction - apologize, but blame someone else just to be safe. And anyway who would've guessed that Rick Santorum had "overzealous volunteers"? Gee, that's a such a stretch.

Were there no instructions to the volunteers (overzealous or otherwise) not to put campaign literature into newspaper boxes? What sort of operations are they running over there?

Notes from the Honsberger Watch

Fred did it again.

Yesterday on his radio show, in another feeble attempt to deflect attention away from the current Republican sex scandal/coverup, Fred Honsberger again trotted out fake Barney Frank charge.

He started by saying that Frank "ran a..." but then stopped himself and said that Frank "allowed a roomate" to run a house of prostitution in his house.

Untrue.

Let's look at the facts (and we're absolutely sure this will change Fred Honsberger's mind and tactics on this. Absolutely). Mediamatters.org has debunked this false charge. Take a look.

In August 1989, Stephen Gobie reportedly told The Washington Times that he ran a prostitution ring out of Frank's Washington, D.C., apartment and that Frank was aware of his operation. While Frank admitted to paying Gobie for sex several years earlier and to later hiring Gobie as an assistant, Frank denied any knowledge that Gobie allegedly ran a prostitution ring out of Frank's apartment. Frank maintained that he fired Gobie upon being told by one of his landlords that Gobie was using his residence for his prostitution business. As The Guardian reported on August 30, 1989, Frank actually "asked the House ethics committee ... to investigate his relationship with" Gobie.

Then they quote from the Guardian article:

In his letter to the ethics committee, Mr. Frank wrote: 'Questions have been raised about my employment of a personal assistant during a period between 1985 and 1987. I have publicly responded to these questions and I have expressed regret for the mistaken judgment involved. In order to ensure that the public record is clear, I hereby request that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct [CSOC, commonly known as the ethics committee] conduct an investigation into these matters.'

And what did the committee find? MediaMatters, again:

The House ethics committee launched a 10-month investigation, ultimately finding, as The Boston Globe reported on July 27, 1990, "that Frank had violated House rules by writing a misleading memo that was used in an effort to end prostitute Stephen Gobie's probation on felony charges and by allowing his House privileges to be used to waive 33 parking tickets that Gobie might have received while driving Frank's car." The report recommended Frank be reprimanded for the infractions, and the House voted for such punishment on July 26, 1990.

Anything else? Take a look. Mediamatters quotes from the committee report:

Based upon information obtained under subpoena and sworn testimony, the Committee concludes that the weight of the evidence indicates that Representative Frank did not have either prior or concomitant knowledge of prostitution activities involving third parties alleged to have taken place in his apartment. ... Representative Frank's landlords ... submitted sworn testimony contradicting Mr. Gobie's assertion. ... The Committee, therefore, further concludes that no further action is warranted. [emphasis added]

So saying that Frank "allowed" his roomate to run a house of prostitution is A LIE.

When will Fred Honsberger correct his false record?

Maybe we should ask him.

Ruling Today On Mayoral Election

According to KDKA and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, a special meeting will be held today at 5:00 PM by the Allegheny County Board of Elections to decide when Pittsburgh's next mayoral election will be held.

Per the P-G:

The board consists of county Chief Executive Dan Onorato and two at-large County Council members, David Fawcett and John DeFazio.

The two most likely scenarios are that a new mayor would be elected in 2007, which is the next municipal election, or 2009, when Mr. O'Connor's term would have ended.

Per me: you can be assured there will be a lawsuit if they decide the election will be in 2009.

KDKA lists the following people as possible mayoral candidates:

Incumbent Luke Ravenstahl

County Prothonotary Michael Lamb

City Councilman Bill Peduto

David Caliguiri -- son of Mayor Caliguiri

State Senator Jim Ferlo

State Representative Dan Frankel

County Council President Rich Fitzgerald

Former City Council President Ben Woods

If you'd like to contact the board members to let them know that you want to be able to VOTE for your mayor in 2007, here is the information that you need (CONTACT THEM EARLY -- BEFORE 5:00 PM!):

Dan Onorato: Phone: (412) 350-6500, Fax: (412) 350-6512, Email: executive@county.allegheny.pa.us

John DeFazio: Phone: (412) 350-6516, Email: jdefazio@county.allegheny.pa.us

David Fawcett: Phone: 412) 350-6520, Email: dfawcett@county.allegheny.pa.us

Who's to blame?

Who's to blame for North Korea's nuclear weapons test?

According to Sen. John McCain (and hordes of other Rethuglicans) it's President Clinton's fault that North Korea may or may not have tested a nuclear weapon six years after Clinton left office:

"I would remind Senator (Hillary) Clinton and other Democrats critical of the Bush administration's policies that the framework agreement her husband's administration negotiated was a failure," McCain said at a news conference after a campaign appearance for Republican Senate candidate Mike Bouchard. (Video here)

And, how is this playing with the masses?

From an admittedly unscientific AOL Poll:

Do you agree with McCain's criticism of the former president?
No 52%
Yes 48%
Total Votes: 107,909

What's motivating McCain to speak out?
Posturing for the 2008 White House race 43%
Combination of both 38%
Concern over the situation with North Korea 19%
Total Votes: 106,934

And, why is the spin not working?

Because as Josh Marshall points out, it doesn't pass the smell test:

"Failure" =1994-2002 -- Era of Clinton 'Agreed Framework': No plutonium production. All existing plutonium under international inspection. No bomb.

"Success" = 2002-2006 -- Bush Policy Era: Active plutonium production. No international inspections of plutonium stocks. Nuclear warhead detonated.

Face it. They ditched an imperfect but working policy. They replaced it with nothing. Now North Korea is a nuclear state.

Facts hurt. So do nukes.

Melissa Hart & The Ethics Committee (Follow the Money)

Now that the Ethics Committee's been working on the aftermath of the Foley scandal/coverup, I thought it might be a good idea to peer into Congresswoman Melissa Hart's financial ties to the possible subjects of that ethics probe.

In case you've been under a rock for the past few weeks, the Foley Scandal/Coverup involves (at the very least) Speaker of the House Hastert and Majority Leader John Boehner.

Each, it turns out, has a PAC and each has given Ethics Committee Member Hart some serious campaign cash.

Dennis Hastert has a PAC called "Keep Our Majority" and in 2006, it gave $5,000 to Melissa Hart.

In 2002, the PAC gave her $5,000 as well.

And way back in 2000, the PAC gave her $9,999 (why couldn't they just round it up to $10,000?).

From Hastert's PAC there's a total of $19,999.

John Boehner's PAC is called "Freedom Project" and in 2006, the PAC gave Hart $9,499. In 2004, she received $5,711 and in 2000, Melissa Hart received an even $10,000 from Boehner's PAC.

From John Boehner's PAC, there's a total of $25,442

So, over the last few years Melissa Hart received $45,441 from the PACs associated with two of the possible subjects of the Ethics Committee probe.

And you remember how and why Hart was installed on the committee in the first place, right? I wrote about it here. Here's what the Washington Post said at the time:

WE HAVE, it seems, once again underestimated the speaker of the House and the lengths to which he is willing to go to neuter the ethics process and protect Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.). When it looked in December as if J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) was prepared to dump the inconveniently activist chairman of the House ethics committee, Rep. Joel Hefley (R-Colo.), we published an editorial headlined "Ousting the Umpire." It turns out we didn't give the speaker enough credit for thinking big. On Wednesday -- and we're sure it was mere coincidence that it happened to be the day of the State of the Union address -- Mr. Hastert finally announced the new lineup for the ethics panel in the 109th Congress. Not only did he can Mr. Hefley, as expected; he also purged the two most recalcitrant -- we would say responsible -- other Republican committee members, Reps. Kenny Hulshof (R-Mo.) and Steven C. LaTourette (R-Ohio).

Further down the editorial, there's this:

Mr. LaTourette was similarly unconvinced. "I think clearly he changed the makeup of the committee because people were for whatever reason not happy with the committee," Mr. LaTourette told the Hill newspaper.

Ok. So a little more than a year and a half ago, Dennis Hastert purges the Ethics Committee to protect Tom Delay because "people" weren't happy with how the committee had been acting up until that point. They obviously wanted a committee they could be happy with and so Melissa Hart (and some other party loyalists) each gets a phone call.

Now she's on the committee and may have to investigate the guy got her the gig and who also gave her campaigns about $20 grand. Other than the $25 grand she's received from the Majority Leader, how much more campaign cash has she gotten from the people the committee may be investigating?

If this is just politics as usual in DC, then it's easy to understand why so many people have sich a high opinion about politics in general and Congress in particular.

I would think that Melissa Hart owes her constituency an clear explanation about her place in all this - 45,441 explanations, at least.