tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20911495915393876862024-02-07T18:16:12.201-08:00Jinchijinchihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04611279045540819939noreply@blogger.comBlogger494125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2091149591539387686.post-61027543214986791632011-01-25T06:50:00.000-08:002022-05-15T21:19:30.288-07:00Many senior Democrats are apparently idiots.<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/22/AR2011012203920.html">The Washington Post</a>, claiming that filibuster reform is dead:
<blockquote>Many senior Democrats, who have watched the majority flip back and forth a half-dozen times in the past 20 years, balked at taking away minority rights, out of fear that Democrats could soon find themselves in the minority. </blockquote> I have to wonder why those senior Democrats believe that this Congress can constrain a future Republican majority anymore than the current Congress is constrained by the rules written in 1975.
The filibuster is going away. The only question is whether it will go away in time for the Democrats to accomplish anything worthwhile.jinchihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04611279045540819939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2091149591539387686.post-625360856375185332010-11-30T05:51:00.000-08:002010-11-30T07:15:45.329-08:00Facebook: anonymity is for trolls<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/opinion/30zhuo.html">Julie Zhou of Facebook</a> would like to rid the internet of anonymity:<br /><p> </p><blockquote><p>Some may argue that denying Internet users the ability to post anonymously is a breach of their privacy and freedom of expression. But <span style="font-weight: bold;">until the age of the Internet, anonymity was a rare thing</span>. When someone spoke in public, his audience would naturally be able to see who was talking. </p><p> Others point out that there’s no way to truly rid the Internet of anonymity. After all, names and e-mail addresses can be faked. And in any case many commenters write things that are rude or inflammatory under their real names. </p></blockquote><p></p>It's hardly a surprise that a <span style="font-style: italic;">product design manager</span> from Facebook thinks anonymity is something we might all want to get rid of. After all, the company makes money selling personal information and has been notorious for it's <a href="http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/05/facebook-rogue/">lack of concern about it's member's privacy</a>.<br /><br />Still, it's hard to believe she hasn't heard that <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/nurse-whistleblower-fingered-doctor-bad-medicine-face-10/story?id=9781119">even today</a> there are <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704588404575124134271085018.html">very real reasons</a> for people to write anonymously. And she'll be happy to know that her concerns about anonymous trolls are shared by the governments of <a href="http://www.theworld.org/2010/09/28/iranian-blogger-sentenced/">Iran</a>, <a href="http://articles.cnn.com/2010-11-25/world/egypt.blogger_1_islam-and-defaming-blogger-egyptians">Egypt</a> and <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8671856.stm">China</a>.<br /><br />But<span style="font-style: italic;"> anonymity was rare thing until recently</span>? Has she never heard of Poor Richard? Or Publius?jinchihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04611279045540819939noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2091149591539387686.post-83055823803250745692010-07-20T18:11:00.000-07:002011-10-22T03:05:18.698-07:00Of course Democrats should end the filibusterMatt Yglesias, Ezra Klein are worried that the Democrats shouldn't be too hasty about getting rid of the filibuster.<br /><br /><a href="http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/07/moments-of-opportunity">Here's Matt</a>:<br /><blockquote>The concern I have is that the political timing is wrong.</blockquote>and <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/why_democrats_cant_break_the_f.html">here's Ezra</a>:<br /><blockquote>You can't return from an election in which the public decisively voted for the Republicans and then say that in the interests of democratic governance, you're taking away the tools Senate Republicans use to exert control over legislation. </blockquote>Of course you can.<br /><br />Did Mitch McConnell wonder about political timing after he’d lost 14 Senate seats over 2 consecutive elections? No. He decided the new rule was<span style="font-style: italic;"> “Every bill needs 60 votes”</span>. And just as quickly, the whole political world agreed with him. He had Tea Parties organized in protest of Obama barely a month after he took the oath of office. Nobody told him his political timing was lousy. And, likewise, nobody but the Republicans will care about the demise of the filibuster a month after it happens.<br /><br />Here's Ezra again:<br /><blockquote>my favored option -- is for Democrats to join with Republicans to set rules that will go into place six or eight years from now. </blockquote>I hate to break it to Ezra, but the Republicans aren't about to join Democrats to make the world a better place. They'll simply wait until they regain the majority and repeal the filibuster all by themselves. If the Democrats don't work every angle to figure out how to govern with 50+ votes then Republicans will get that majority, along with the presidency, in 2012.<br /><br />Political timing? Seriously? We’re at the edge of another Great Depression. If Democrats are in the majority next January they need to get rid of the filibuster or the government will cease to function. If they hope to keep the majority and the presidency past 2012 they’ll need to solve real problems. That’s political reality.<br /><br />I don’t know why Matt and Ezra constantly feel the need to be part of the liberal cold water brigade, but if they want to be part of a progressive solution, they'd be better off spending their time dreaming up ways to pass legislation with a mere majority instead of explaining to the rest of us why nothing can be done.jinchihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04611279045540819939noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2091149591539387686.post-39052048077324063262010-06-21T07:04:00.000-07:002010-06-21T07:34:13.875-07:00unknown unknownsFrom the NYT:<br /><blockquote><a href="http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/the-anosognosics-dilemma-1/">DAVID DUNNING</a>: Donald Rumsfeld gave this speech about “unknown unknowns.” It goes something like this: “There are things we know we know about terrorism. There are things we know we don’t know. And there are things that are unknown unknowns. We don’t know that we don’t know.” He got a lot of grief for that. And I thought, “That’s the smartest and most modest thing I’ve heard in a year.”</blockquote><br />Just to keep the record straight, people were laughing at Rumsfeld, because he only discovered "unknown unknowns" when it was completely self-serving to do so. There was nothing he didn't know before the Iraq war became an obvious disaster. Before the war, he told us that we knew Saddam had WMD, we knew he was a real threat to the U.S., we knew he was assisting Al Qaeda, and we knew that the war would be easy and over in a matter of weeks.<br /><br />Rumsfeld dismissed anyone who doubted the wisdom of starting a second war while we were still fighting in Afghanistan. Not only did he ridicule them, he typically accused them of treason for giving 'aid and comfort' to the enemy.<br /><br />Rumsfeld was neither smart nor modest in his answer. He was just attempting to deflect responsibility for his failures.jinchihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04611279045540819939noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2091149591539387686.post-42533725932043046402009-04-05T22:10:00.000-07:002009-04-06T22:18:50.701-07:00Getting Democrats back under 60?This is the Republican party setting high standards:<br /><blockquote>“In 2012, <a href="http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/preventing-60-hope-for-republicans-may-be-two-elections-away-2009-04-01.html">their goal is to get Democrats back under 60</a>,” said Jennifer Duffy of The Cook Political Report. “With 24 seats, the mathematical odds are pretty good.”</blockquote><br />Democrats currently hold <span style="font-weight: bold;">56</span> seats in the Senate and the likely victory of Al Franken would put them at <span style="font-weight: bold;">57</span>. Even giving them credit for the 2 independents (Lieberman and Sanders) only gets them to <span style="font-weight: bold;">59</span>.<br /><br />So isn't getting them <span style="font-style: italic;">"back under 60"</span>, two elections from now, quite a bit less than the bare minimum that the Republicans should be hoping for?jinchihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04611279045540819939noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2091149591539387686.post-64484086027581217062009-02-25T06:31:00.000-08:002009-02-25T19:25:37.597-08:00"Something called volcano monitoring"Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana, complains about <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/24/us/politics/24jindal-text.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all">"wasteful spending"</a>.<br /><br /><blockquote>While some of the projects in the bill make sense, their legislation is larded with wasteful spending. It includes $300 million to buy new cars for the government, $8 billion for high-speed rail projects, such as a magnetic levitation line from Las Vegas to Disneyland, and <span style="font-weight: bold;">$140 million for something called volcano monitoring.</span><br /><br />Instead of monitoring volcanoes, what Congress should be monitoring is the eruption of spending in Washington, D.C.</blockquote>Note to Bobby Jindal. Volcano monitoring is something like <a href="http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/"><span style="font-style: italic;">this</span></a>, only for the people on the West Coast:<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/15000/15556/Rita_AMO_2005266.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 540px; height: 694px;" src="http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/15000/15556/Rita_AMO_2005266.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">Hurricane Rita off the coast of Louisiana, 2005.<br />NASA image courtesy Jeff Schmaltz, MODIS Land Rapid Response Team at NASA GSFC</span>jinchihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04611279045540819939noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2091149591539387686.post-34668423496950677282009-01-23T14:52:00.000-08:002009-01-23T15:42:59.768-08:00Forbes defines "liberal"<a href="http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/influencers-by-digby-forbes-magazine.html">Lots</a> <a href="http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=6730">of</a> <a href="http://commentsfromleftfield.com/2009/01/forbes-lists-25-most-influential-liberals-in-us-media">bloggers</a> <a href="http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/01/23/25_libs/index.html?source=rss&aim=/politics/war_room">are</a> <a href="http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/01/listmania.php">puzzled</a> by the fact that Forbes magazine's list of <a href="http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/22/influential-media-obama-oped-cx_tv_ee_hra_0122liberal.html">the 25 most influential liberals</a> includes several self-described conservatives, moderates and advocates of George Bush's Iraq war. How did they get on the list?<br /><br />Here's a summary of Forbes' reasoning:<br /><ul><li>Andrew Sullivan - gay, gay, so very, very gay.</li><li>Christopher Hitchens - atheist, thinks Sarah Palin is an idiot.</li><li>Chris Matthews - likes Obama and it's been years since he thought only wackos hated W.</li><li>Fareed Zakaria - really smart. looks foreign.</li><li>Tom Friedman - come on, we all know Friedman is a liberal</li><li>Fred Hiatt - mostly moderate and the left hates him, but Obama will probably read his column.</li></ul>jinchihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04611279045540819939noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2091149591539387686.post-79007718109006833702009-01-23T14:43:00.000-08:002009-01-23T15:46:22.298-08:00I guess we're a center-left nation after allAccording to <a href="http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/22/influential-media-obama-oped-cx_tv_ee_hra_0122liberal.html">Forbes magazine</a>, you're a liberal if you subscribe to "some or all of the following":<br /><ul><li>progressive income taxation</li><li>universal health care of some kind</li><li>opposition to the war in Iraq, and a certain queasiness about the war on terror</li><li>an instinctive preference for international diplomacy</li><li>the right to gay marriage</li><li>a woman's right to an abortion</li><li>environmentalism in some Kyoto Protocol-friendly form</li><li>and a rejection of the McCain-Palin ticket</li></ul>I love the "certain queasiness about the war on terror" line. I suppose that's a euphemism for "opposes torture". And "rejection of the McCain-Palin ticket" alone puts 53% of all voters in the liberal category.jinchihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04611279045540819939noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2091149591539387686.post-42176599890954636682009-01-23T12:45:00.000-08:002009-01-23T13:40:02.953-08:00Republican women and the Lilly Ledbetter ActRepublican women Senators broke with their party to help pass the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, but Republican women in the House didn’t.<br /><br />Ledbetter had sued her employer when she discovered that she was making far less than her male collegues, but (in a 5-4 decision) the Supreme Court decided that she hadn't discovered it quickly enough:<br /><blockquote><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2008/09/15/080915ta_talk_surowiecki">Although Ledbetter did the same job as her colleagues, and had more seniority than some of them</a>, they were all being paid considerably more than she was. Ledbetter sued, under the Civil Rights Act, and proved that her lower pay was the result of discrimination early in her career, the effects of which had never been remedied. But victory was short-lived; the verdict was overturned on appeal, and then the Supreme Court ruled against her. The Court did not deny that Ledbetter had been discriminated against. However, according to the Civil Rights Act, Ledbetter’s lawsuit had to be filed within a hundred and eighty days, and the Court ruled that the clock started ticking with the first act of discrimination, almost two decades before Ledbetter found out what was going on.</blockquote>The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act overturns that decision, clarifying that the clock starts ticking with the most recent discriminatory paycheck. Last year, Republicans successfully filibustered the bill and George Bush had threatened to veto it if it got to his desk. Yesterday's bill passed the Senate <a href="http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00014">61-36</a>, enough to stop another threatened filibuster. Without the support of Republicans Susan Collins (R-ME), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX) it would have fallen short.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Arlen Specter</span> (R-PA) was the only Republican man in the Senate who joined them.<br /><br />But before you conclude that Republican women and Republican men are hopelessly divided on this issue, realize that <a href="http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll009.xml">only 3 House Republicans supported the bill</a>; Ed Whitfield (KY), Don Young (AK) and Christopher Smith (NJ) - all men.jinchihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04611279045540819939noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2091149591539387686.post-14487406770846540502008-11-14T14:37:00.000-08:002008-11-20T07:10:19.481-08:00White support for Obama in the StatesHere's an example of a pollster <a href="http://www.pollster.com/blogs/white_vote_for_obama_in_the_st.php">overanalyzing his data</a>:<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.pollster.com/blogs/StateVotebyRace.png"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 400px;" src="http://www.pollster.com/blogs/StateVotebyRace.png" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><blockquote><a href="http://www.pollster.com/blogs/white_vote_for_obama_in_the_st.php">There is considerable variation in the percentage of whites who voted for Obama</a>. Where African Americans made up less than 20% of the vote (according to exit polls), whites varied from 30% to 60% in their support for Obama but with no relationship to the size of the African American vote.<span style="font-style: italic;"> As the African American electorate rose above 20%, white support for Obama fell sharply to barely 10%.</span></blockquote><br />So whites are less likely to vote for a black man if there are "too many" blacks living in the state? I don't think so. Look closely at his chart and you'll realize that the entire basis of his inference relies on data from 3 states - <span style="font-weight: bold;">Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama</span> - which just happen to border one another.<br /><br />White support for Obama varied by region, not by the number of blacks in each state. Obama did most poorly among whites in the deep south and in Mormon country. He did best in the northeast and on the west coast. White New Yorkers don't have the same values as white Mississippians. Voters in Vermont disagree with voters in Utah on just about everything. People in different places want different things and it shows up at the polls.<br /><br />Simply plotting the data on a map shows a very precise pattern - slightly different in the western US than in the east, but with clear regional trends.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGxsN6urkZvGMozAzzhb7y0gjOAzEPLhyphenhyphenH34LmcpMvR9SsolkZDxRXaDarjklNRuNutWnTNlkUs-YzfEnW2JuZIY_c7nC8PG4lOZ5w5BLH1KcwP9K3F8OIXvECN4h7lTFMCaOaRAlK-HI/s1600-h/USA_obama_pct_white_vote.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 292px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGxsN6urkZvGMozAzzhb7y0gjOAzEPLhyphenhyphenH34LmcpMvR9SsolkZDxRXaDarjklNRuNutWnTNlkUs-YzfEnW2JuZIY_c7nC8PG4lOZ5w5BLH1KcwP9K3F8OIXvECN4h7lTFMCaOaRAlK-HI/s400/USA_obama_pct_white_vote.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5268647317772508994" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><br />White support for Obama by state relative to the U.S. average (42%). White voters in states colored red voted disproportionately for McCain. White voters in states colored blue voted disproportionately for Obama. The intensity of the colors indicates the margin for the preferred candidate. (Data from <a href="http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/map.html">NY Times</a> exit polls.)</span><br /><br />Take a trip from Alabama north to Maine, Michigan or Minnesota and you'll find yourself in states that are progressively friendlier to Barack Obama, irrespective of the percentage of blacks in each state. Even West Virginia, which many were suggesting was filled with white racists, fits the pattern perfectly (more supportive of Obama than Virginia and Kentucky, less supportive than Ohio and Pennsylvania).<br /><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYmusWfT_idFaMkyZSS3CFAov0hBAw42oLvdHBqbFkT3kkbh8ULNtC4VQoyo_EQlGe0SX5KlXTki5az7vXbzeBe4QM9mW2nq5hTdJQht3xaS4kfZTcfn4Yqr5qvfeq8yeSr20PyzumCUk/s1600-h/Alabama_to_Maine.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 270px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYmusWfT_idFaMkyZSS3CFAov0hBAw42oLvdHBqbFkT3kkbh8ULNtC4VQoyo_EQlGe0SX5KlXTki5az7vXbzeBe4QM9mW2nq5hTdJQht3xaS4kfZTcfn4Yqr5qvfeq8yeSr20PyzumCUk/s400/Alabama_to_Maine.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5270264818107257330" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">Obama's support among whites in states along a path from Alabama to Maine. Does this look random to anybody?</span><br /><br />Suddenly, the "<span style="font-style: italic;">considerable variation in the percentage of whites who voted for Obama</span>" becomes very predictable.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"></span>jinchihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04611279045540819939noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2091149591539387686.post-5453597272536629612008-11-13T22:05:00.000-08:002008-11-13T22:39:27.923-08:00John Kyl: just kidding about the nuclear optionWait! You mean all that talk about the need for an "up or down vote" was just a bunch of partisan B.S.?<br /><br /><a href="http://triangle.bizjournals.com/triangle/othercities/phoenix/stories/2008/11/03/daily77.html">November 2008</a><br /><blockquote>“He believes in justices that have empathy,” said Kyl, speaking at a Federalist Society meeting in Phoenix. The attorneys group promotes conservative legal principles.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Kyl</span> said if Obama goes with empathetic judges who do not base their decisions on the rule of law and legal precedents but instead the factors in each case, <span style="font-weight: bold;">he would try to block those picks via filibuster.</span></blockquote><br />That didn't take long.<br /><br />It seems like just yesterday Senator Kyl was wringing his hands over the thought that Democrats were destroying 214 years of "wise, carefully thought out" Senate tradition.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/jan-june05/judges_4-18.html">April 18, 2005</a><br /><blockquote>KWAME HOLMAN: But Sen. Kyl says the advise and consent role should include an <span style="font-weight: bold;">up-or-down vote</span> as well and changing the Senate rules may be the only way to guarantee it.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">SEN. JON KYL:</span> There may well come a Supreme Court vacancy soon. I just don't think the people of the country are going to stand by and let a minority dictate whether or not we're even going take a vote on a nominee.<br /><br />SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: My strategy is to use every ounce of my energy to try to confirm President Bush's judges without going to the so-called "constitutional" or "nuclear option."<br /><br />KWAME HOLMAN: But Sen. Kyl says Democrats may give Republicans no choice.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">SEN. JON KYL:</span> Our Democratic colleagues have to make a decision. Will they continue their filibuster or not? If they do, and they're not willing to discuss any kind of a compromise, then I don't see any alternative but to reestablish the tradition of the majority vote.</blockquote><br /><a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/jan-june05/judges_4-25.html">April 25, 2005</a><br /><blockquote><span style="font-weight: bold;">SEN. JOHN KYL:</span> This is strictly about whether or not a minority of senators is going to prevent the president from being able to name and get confirmed judges that he chooses after he's been elected by the American people. And it's never been the case until the last two years that a minority could dictate to the majority what they could do.<br /><br />...<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">SEN. JOHN KYL:</span> Well, I'll tell you what is shutting down the judiciary is not filling vacancies. We have according to the commission on the courts several emergency judicial emergencies, situations in which we need to put judges in to vacant positions. They're not -- we're not being able to act on them. <span style="font-weight: bold;">It really is true that justice delayed is justice denied.</span> So we need to give these judges an <span style="font-weight: bold;">up or down vote</span>. That's all we're asking for, and if some of my colleagues think that they're too conservative or in some other way unqualified then vote against them.</blockquote><br /><a href="http://kyl.senate.gov/legis_center/ConstlOption.pdf">May 19, 2005</a><br /><blockquote><span style="font-weight: bold;">SEN. JOHN KYL:</span> The reality is that the Senate is now engaged in an historic effort to protect constitutional prerogatives and the proper checks and balances between the branches of government. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Republicans seek to right a wrong that has undermined 214 years of tradition – wise, carefully thought-out tradition.</span> The fact that the Senate rules theoretically allowed the filibuster of judicial nominations but were never used to that end is an important indicator of what is right, and why the precedent of allowing <span style="font-weight: bold;">up-or-down votes</span> is so well established. It is that precedent that has been attacked and which we seek to restore.<br /><br />Fortunately, the Senate is not powerless to prevent a minority from running roughshod over its traditions. It has the power – and the obligation – to govern itself. As I will demonstrate today, that power to govern itself easily extends to that device that has come to be known as the “constitutional option.”</blockquote>jinchihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04611279045540819939noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2091149591539387686.post-80801824688827028612008-11-06T22:24:00.001-08:002008-11-06T23:04:04.322-08:00David Frum: its already Obama's faultWho says conservatives have to wait until January to start blaming Obama for the country's problems?<br /><br /><a href="http://marketplace.publicradio.org//display/web/2008/11/05/frum/">Here's <span style="font-weight: bold;">David "axis of evil" Frum</span></a>, on the day after the election, claiming that FDR deliberately delayed an economic recovery until his inauguration and hinting that Obama will do the same:<br /> <blockquote><p>[M]any suspected that Roosevelt understood that the worse things were on the day before he took office, the better he would look on his first day in. <br /></p><p>Deliberately or not, Roosevelt maximized political and economic uncertainty for almost half a year at unknowable cost to the American people, but to his own ultimate political benefit.</p><p>Might such a temptation be repeated? There are signs that the worst of the Wall Street financial crisis lies behind us. Credit conditions are thawing, huge liquidity has been injected into markets and stock indexes seem to have apparently stabilized. A recession has begun, but its severity remains uncertain.</p> <p>From the point of view of the new president, this bottoming out is premature. He needs the recovery to begin in January and will benefit if it can be made to look that way.</p> <p>That would be understandable politics. It could be very dangerous economics.</p></blockquote><p></p>Got that? The economy is already turning around. But if it isn't, it's Obama's fault.jinchihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04611279045540819939noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2091149591539387686.post-51737711461577614072008-11-06T21:20:00.000-08:002008-11-06T21:53:28.965-08:00Feingold as chair of the Foreign Relations Committee?<span style="font-style: italic;">The Hill</span> worries about the possibility that <a href="http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/outspoken-feingold-could-lead-senate-foreign-relations-2008-11-06.html">Russ Feingold could become chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee</a>.<br /><blockquote><p>That leaves Feingold, an unapologetic champion of civil liberties and a staunch opponent of the Bush administration’s war in Iraq, next in line. Feingold opposed the war from the start and was the first senator to call for a U.S. troop withdrawal timetable.</p></blockquote>You'd think the results of the last two elections would make that a no-brainer. But not everyone agrees:<br /><blockquote><p>Democrats could bypass the Wisconsin senator and choose a more centrist member, such as Sen. Bill Nelson (Fla.), who initially supported the war and could be more open to compromise.</p></blockquote>Yes. Why would anyone want a chairman who's an unapologetic defender of civil liberties and opposed an unpopular war, when we could have a man who reached across the aisle to vote for the biggest foreign policy blunder of the last 40 years?<br /><br />I suppose in a bipartisan paradise Joe Lieberman would keep his committee chairmanship despite attacking the Democratic majority, and Russ Feingold would be expelled from the caucus for not playing nice with Republicans.jinchihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04611279045540819939noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2091149591539387686.post-81257419789040186332008-11-04T21:37:00.000-08:002008-11-04T22:02:34.685-08:00Bob Barr's insurgent campaign costs John McCain two states<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3056/2533898317_08a24df693.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer; width: 500px; height: 333px;" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3056/2533898317_08a24df693.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><br />He didn't exactly cost John McCain the election, but if the current numbers hold, it looks like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Barr">Bob Barr</a>, the conservative Republican who famously broke from his party on the issues of the <a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2008/0801.barr.html">rule of law and torture</a>, may have cost John McCain victories in North Carolina and Indiana.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: left;"><ul><b>North Carolina</b> with 98% of precincts reporting<br /><br /><li>Barack Obama(D) 2,098,401</li><li>John McCain(R) 2,084,344</li><li>Bob Barr(L) 25,031</li><br /><br /><b>Indiana</b> with 98% of precincts reporting<br /><br /><li>Barack Obama(D) 1,330,959</li><li>John McCain(R) 1,315,916</li><li>Bob Barr(L) 28,692</li></ul></div><br /><br />Update: Too early to be sure, but <a href="http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=11015">Ron Paul</a> may cost him Montana for the same reason.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><br />Numbers via <a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/">TPM</a> at 12:30 Eastern time.<br />Image via <a href="http://flickr.com/photos/26574201@N07/">Bob Barr for President</a> under a Creative Commons license.<br /><br /></span>jinchihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04611279045540819939noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2091149591539387686.post-28074996308056445862008-11-04T19:47:00.000-08:002008-11-04T19:51:49.696-08:00Congratulations President-elect Barack Obama!<a href="http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/barack-obama-wins-ohio.html">Ohio</a> plus all the Kerry States puts him over the top.jinchihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04611279045540819939noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2091149591539387686.post-18444202052060550122008-11-03T22:43:00.000-08:002008-11-03T23:04:42.268-08:00Just vote already<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/14/19256103_1d9eb61fbd.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 289px;" src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/14/19256103_1d9eb61fbd.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">"Vote" Image originally uploaded by <a href="http://flickr.com/photos/therefore/">Dean Terry</a> under a Creative Commons license.</span>jinchihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04611279045540819939noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2091149591539387686.post-23097221018758215432008-10-23T23:01:00.000-07:002008-10-23T23:31:04.103-07:00Sarah Palin earned $107,987 as governor in 2007A Republican donor, defending the $150,000 expense of outfitting Sarah Palin had this as a defense:<br /><br /><blockquote>Given the short notice and the Palins’ <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14840.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;">relatively modest means</span></a>, “she could probably not go into her closet at home in Alaska to come up with a wardrobe appropriate for her status as a vice presidential candidate," he said.</blockquote><br />Together with her husband, Palin <a href="http://www.johnmccain.com/downloads/2007TaxForms_Palin.pdf">earned over $166,000</a> in 2007. That's not on par with <a href="http://jinchi.blogspot.com/2008/04/mccain-is-decidedly-middle-class.html">McCain</a> or even Obama (and nowhere near the fictional income of Joe the Plumber), but it's hardly <span style="font-style: italic;">"modest means"</span>.<br /><br />It's <a href="http://www.labor.state.ak.us/research/trends/nov05inc.pdf">more than double</a> what the typical 2-earner family in the U.S. or Alaska brings home.jinchihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04611279045540819939noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2091149591539387686.post-7809731191219053512008-10-16T21:33:00.000-07:002008-10-16T21:48:20.207-07:00McCain: "I am not President Bush"If McCain wants us to think he's different from George Bush then he should stop stealing W's lines.<br /><br />Here's <a href="http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/09/12/McCain_Judges_shouldnt_legislate/UPI-69641221239579/">John McCain last month</a>:<br /><blockquote>"What what we'd be doing is nominating justices who <span style="font-weight: bold;">strictly interpret the Constitution</span>," McCain said during an appearance on the ABC daytime talk show "The View." "<span style="font-weight: bold;">We would not impose litmus test.</span>"</blockquote>and here's <a href="http://www.issues2000.org/George_W__Bush_Abortion.htm">George W. Bush in 2000</a> during the debate against Gore: <br /><blockquote>Q: Should a voter assume that all judicial appointments you make to the Supreme Court will be pro-life? <p>BUSH: Voters should assume that <span style="font-weight: bold;">I have no litmus test</span> on that issue or any other issue. The voters will know I’ll put competent judges on the bench, people who will <span style="font-weight: bold;">strictly interpret the Constitution</span> and will not use the bench to write social policy. I believe in strict constructionists.</p></blockquote>jinchihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04611279045540819939noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2091149591539387686.post-68047988119997633982008-10-15T21:51:00.000-07:002008-10-15T22:26:49.059-07:00Obama: Human rights must be a part of trade agreements<span style="font-weight: bold;"></span><blockquote><span style="font-weight: bold;">McCAIN:</span> <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/15/debate.transcript/index.html">Free trade with Colombia is something that's a no-brainer.</a> But maybe you ought to travel down there and visit them and maybe you could understand it a lot better.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">OBAMA:</span> Let me respond. Actually, I understand it pretty well. The history in Colombia right now is that labor leaders have been targeted for assassination on a fairly consistent basis and there have not been prosecutions.<br /><br />And what I have said, because the trade agreement itself does have labor and environmental protections, but we have to stand for human rights and we have to make sure that violence isn't being perpetrated against workers who are just trying to organize for their rights, which is why, for example, I supported the Peruvian Free Trade Agreement which was a well-structured agreement.</blockquote><br />April, 2008:<br /><br /><blockquote><a href="http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/13/america/bogota.php">More than 2,500 union members in Colombia have been killed since 1985</a>, and fewer than 100 cases have a conviction, according to the National Labor School, a labor research group in Medellín.<br /><br />Now these killings are emerging as a pressing issue in Washington as Democrats and Republicans battle over a trade deal with Colombia, the Bush administration's top ally in Latin America. The Colombian government is already struggling to recover from the latest salvo in the fight, a vote by U.S. House Democrats on Thursday to snub President George W. Bush and indefinitely delay voting on the deal.<br /><br />Since President Álvaro Uribe took office in 2002, there has been a marked decline in union killings, accompanying a broader decline in overall murders and kidnappings. Still, 400 union members have been killed since then, and dozens of his supporters in the Colombian Congress and his former intelligence chief are under investigation for ties to rightist paramilitary death squads, which are classified as terrorists by the United States and responsible for some of the union killings.</blockquote><br />Here's Amnesty International's report :<br /><br /><a href="http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR23/001/2007/en/dom-AMR230012007en.html">Killings, arbitrary detentions, and death threats -- the reality of trade unionism in Colombia</a>jinchihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04611279045540819939noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2091149591539387686.post-25986453898627510402008-10-08T07:03:00.000-07:002008-10-08T07:15:29.449-07:00McCain: the challenge is to know when to go to war<blockquote><span style="font-weight: bold;">McCain:</span> [T]he challenge is to know when the United States of American can beneficially effect the outcome of a crisis, when to go in and when not, <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/07/presidential.debate.transcript/">when American military power is worth the expenditure of our most precious treasure</a>.<p> And that question can only be answered by someone with the knowledge and experience and the judgment, the judgment to know when our national security is not only at risk, but where the United States of America can make a difference in preventing genocide, in preventing the spread of terrorism, in doing the things that the United States has done, not always well, but we've done because we're a nation of good.</p><p> And I am convinced that my record, going back to my opposition from sending the Marines to Lebanon, to supporting our efforts in <span style="font-weight: bold;">Kosovo and Bosnia and the first Gulf War</span>, and my judgment, I think, is something that I'm -- a record that I'm willing to stand on.</p><p> Sen. Obama was wrong about Iraq and the surge. He was wrong about Russia when they committed aggression against Georgia. And in his short career, he does not understand our national security challenges.</p></blockquote><p></p>Kosovo, Bosnia, the first Gulf war..... Isn't he forgetting something here?<br /><br />For anyone keeping score - John McCain lobbied for a trillion dollar war that's turned into a quagmire. Barack Obama opposed it.jinchihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04611279045540819939noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2091149591539387686.post-82073897032141544352008-10-08T06:52:00.000-07:002008-10-08T06:59:00.957-07:00Obama: health care should be a right for every American<b></b><blockquote><b>Obama</b>: <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/07/presidential.debate.transcript/">Well, I think [health care] should be a right for every American.</a> In a country as wealthy as ours, for us to have people who are going bankrupt because they can't pay their medical bills -- for my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in the hospital room arguing with insurance companies because they're saying that this may be a pre-existing condition and they don't have to pay her treatment, there's something fundamentally wrong about that.<br /><br />...<br /><br />And when Sen. McCain says that he wants to provide children health care, what he doesn't mention is he voted against the expansion of the Children's Health Insurance Program that is responsible for making sure that so many children who didn't have previously health insurance have it now.<br /></blockquote>jinchihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04611279045540819939noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2091149591539387686.post-30869136937617556472008-10-08T06:28:00.000-07:002008-10-15T23:06:47.799-07:00Senator Obama says that it has to be safe or disposable or something like that.<blockquote><span style="font-weight: bold;">McCAIN:</span> Now, how -- what's -- what's the best way of fixing it? Nuclear power. <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/07/presidential.debate.transcript/">Sen. Obama says that it has to be safe or disposable or something like that.</a><p><br /></p><p> Look, I -- I was on Navy ships that had nuclear power plants. Nuclear power is safe, and it's clean, and it creates hundreds of thousands of jobs.</p></blockquote><p></p><br />And what could be safer than life on a nuclear military vessel?<br /><br /><blockquote><a style="font-weight: bold;" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_marine_propulsion">Naval nuclear accidents</a><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">United States</span><br /><br /> * USS Thresher (SSN-593) (sank, 129 killed)<br /> * USS Scorpion (SSN-589) (sank, 99 killed)<br /><br />Both sank for reasons unrelated to their reactor plants and still lie on the Atlantic sea floor.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Russian or Soviet</span><br /><br /> * Komsomolets K-278 (sank, 42 killed)<br /> * Kursk K-141 (sank recently, 118 killed)<br /> * K-8 (loss of coolant) (sank, 42 killed)<br /> * K-11 (refueling criticality)<br /> * K-19 (loss of coolant)<br /> * K-27 (scuttled)<br /> * K-116 (reactor accident)<br /> * K-122 (reactor accident)<br /> * K-123 (loss of coolant)<br /> * K-140 (power excursion)<br /> * K-159 (radioactive discharge) (sank recently, 9 killed)<br /> * K-192 (loss of coolant)<br /> * K-219 (sank after collision, 4 killed)<br /> * K-222 (uncontrolled startup)<br /> * K-314 (refueling criticality, 10 killed)<br /> * K-320 (uncontrolled startup)<br /> * K-429 (sank twice, 16 killed)<br /> * K-431 (reactor accident)</blockquote>jinchihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04611279045540819939noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2091149591539387686.post-66027975381148983882008-10-01T00:37:00.000-07:002008-10-05T21:50:28.682-07:00John McCain and the Bankruptcy Bill of 2005*<span style="font-size:85%;">*Or why even the Democratic Senator from MBNA is a better bet for consumers than the Republican maverick from Arizona.</span><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyqcw0nASPOw4my40Fh3i6P9ETdJoqJaE_BAIxNAQnb_5EAbWcC1Le3Lg-edK2jRy_FK3zaEGgNpONRkY1pL5-6P2WZ-z81Mx0la0xvYLkyOFK_DdDC1A24JgSIVsHO3ApcvK8wPXyTLs/s1600-h/bankruptcy_amends.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyqcw0nASPOw4my40Fh3i6P9ETdJoqJaE_BAIxNAQnb_5EAbWcC1Le3Lg-edK2jRy_FK3zaEGgNpONRkY1pL5-6P2WZ-z81Mx0la0xvYLkyOFK_DdDC1A24JgSIVsHO3ApcvK8wPXyTLs/s400/bankruptcy_amends.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5252074862525466850" border="0" /></a><br /><br />In 2005, John McCain was an enthusiastic backer of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act <span style="font-weight: bold;">(S. 256</span>) which ultimately became law on a <a href="http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00044">75-24</a> vote. This is the bill that stripped away many of the protections individuals used to have when falling into bankruptcy. Amendments to protect victims of<a href="http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00021"> identity theft</a>, those who fell into debt due to <a href="http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00016">medical</a> or natural catastrophes, and to provide <a href="http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00035">homestead exemptions</a> were all rejected. Attempts to place restrictions and regulations on creditors, such as <a href="http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00015">disclosure obligations</a>, restrictions on <a href="http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00022">predatory lending</a> practices and <a href="http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00020">limits on the interest rate</a> that could be charged also failed (the figure above shows how each Senator voted on consumer protection amendments to the bill; red are Republicans, blue are Democrats and green is the Independent Jeffords).<br /><br />As the name implies Republicans were concerned with what they considered <span style="font-style: italic;">abuses</span> of the bankruptcy laws and McCain was no exception. As this <a href="http://www.revrob.com/images/stories/bankruptcy/mccainletter.jpg">letter to a constituent</a> shows he believed that too many people were gaming the system at a time of prosperity:<br /><blockquote>The number of Americans filing for bankruptcy has increased dramatically in recent years. What is surprising is that this increase is coming at a time of low unemployment and high wages, when debt problems should be at their lowest. Significant numbers of people who can pay some of what they owe are opting to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, which permits them to erase almost all of their debt.</blockquote>Despite being written explicitly to the desires of the credit card industry, in McCain's view the bill created a "fair and balanced approach" which restored personal responsibility to the system. And while "Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention" was the essence of the bill, there was little that could be called "Consumer Protection" in it.<br /><br />With the exception of an amendment to protect disabled veterans (which passed 99-0), all attempts to add consumer rights to the bill failed. John McCain was one of 50 Republican Senators who voted against adding consumer protections to the bill <a href="http://www.bankruptcylawnetwork.com/2008/07/06/obama-and-mccains-votes-on-bankruptcy-amendments/"><span style="font-style: italic;">every single time</span></a>. McCain even voted against an amendment that would have protected active service members in Iraq from means testing and usury.<br /><br />S.256 passed the Senate <a href="http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00044">74-25</a>.<br /><br />The Republicans were unanimous in their support for the final bill. 18 Democrats and Independent Jim Jeffords voted with the majority.<br /><br />25 Democrats, including <span style="font-weight: bold;"><a href="http://jinchi.blogspot.com/2008/01/barack-obama-and-bankruptcy-bill-of.html">Barack Obama</a>,</span> voted against the bill.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /><a href="http://jinchi.blogspot.com/2007/03/joe-biden-on-bankruptcy-bill-it-was-all.html">Joe Biden voted for it</a>.</span> In fact he championed it in the Senate, and his defense of the bill bordered on absurdity. Still he voted for the consumer protection amendments over 40% of the time.<br /><br />McCain still defends his vote on the bill. His spokesman cites the bill as an example of McCain's bipartisan worldview and believes it compares favorably against Barack Obama.<br /><blockquote>"Eighteen Democrats and John McCain worked together on the bipartisan Senate bankruptcy bill, and Barack Obama's rigid partisanship and self-promoting political attacks show that he's a typical politician — which is the problem in Washington, not the solution." - <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-07-08-bankruptcy_N.htm">McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds</a><br /></blockquote>jinchihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04611279045540819939noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2091149591539387686.post-38651097025076512862008-09-27T00:57:00.000-07:002008-09-28T07:04:33.607-07:00Does John McCain support the overthrow of "failed" democracies?<blockquote><a href="http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/transcripts/first-presidential-debate.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;">OBAMA:</span></a> And the problem, John, with the strategy that's been pursued was that, for 10 years, we coddled Musharraf, we alienated the Pakistani population, because we were anti-democratic. We had a 20th-century mindset that basically said, "Well, you know, he may be a dictator, but he's our dictator."<br /><br />And as a consequence, we lost legitimacy in Pakistan. We spent $10 billion. And in the meantime, they weren't going after Al Qaida, and they are more powerful now than at any time since we began the war in Afghanistan.<br /><br />That's going to change when I'm president of the United States.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">MCCAIN:</span> I -- I don't think that Senator Obama understands that there was a failed state in Pakistan when Musharraf came to power. Everybody who was around then, and had been there, and knew about it knew that it was a failed state.</blockquote><br />Musharraf didn't "come to power". He overthrew the Prime Minister in a coup, suspended the constitution, imprisoned Supreme Court justices when they ruled against his wishes and spent as much effort jailing the opposition as targeting al Qaeda (<a href="http://jinchi.blogspot.com/2007/11/remember-this-is-what-were-fighting-for.html">while receiving the open support of the U.S. government</a>).<br /><br />And while Pakistan is often dysfunctional, it's biggest problem is that the military isn't subject to the civilian government and constantly threatens the elected leadership when it doesn't get it's way.jinchihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04611279045540819939noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2091149591539387686.post-85702475452122888062008-09-26T21:59:00.000-07:002008-09-28T07:03:50.632-07:0020 civilians a day are dying in Iraq<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUAKKtLPOBg42x4pG1K9NN-cqlEmyTbjBxMaWNo2lQzBsNM4jhPUXtRmmWFMJdgr8FPW8XVJWHD0qj6nuOrxDzOUR_scIs-2X4GX8uDeoDqarK3og4wBlRwWn8Lbz9PvLJS74WgVX-9Fo/s1600-h/civilian_casualties_iraq.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUAKKtLPOBg42x4pG1K9NN-cqlEmyTbjBxMaWNo2lQzBsNM4jhPUXtRmmWFMJdgr8FPW8XVJWHD0qj6nuOrxDzOUR_scIs-2X4GX8uDeoDqarK3og4wBlRwWn8Lbz9PvLJS74WgVX-9Fo/s400/civilian_casualties_iraq.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5250581313318592114" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;">Documented civilian deaths due to violence in Iraq over the last 2 months. (Data from <a href="http://www.iraqbodycount.org/">Iraq Body Count</a>)<br /></span><br /><blockquote><a href="http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/transcripts/first-presidential-debate.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;">MCCAIN:</span></a> This strategy has succeeded. <span style="font-weight: bold;">And we are winning in Iraq</span>. And we will come home with victory and with honor. And that withdrawal is the result of every counterinsurgency that succeeds.<br /><br />And I want to tell you that now that we will succeed and our troops will come home, and not in defeat, that we will see a stable ally in the region and a fledgling democracy.<br /><br />The consequences of defeat would have been increased Iranian influence. It would have been increase in sectarian violence. It would have been a wider war, which the United States of America might have had to come back.<br /><br />So there was a lot at stake there. And thanks to this great general, David Petraeus, and the troops who serve under him, they have succeeded. <span style="font-weight: bold;">And we are winning in Iraq</span>, and we will come home. And we will come home as we have when we have won other wars and not in defeat.</blockquote>Just to clarify; when John McCain insists that <span style="font-style: italic;">we are winning in Iraq</span>, his definition of victory includes the fact that the capital city has been ethnically cleansed, neighborhoods are literally walled off from one another, <a href="http://www.refugeesinternational.org/content/article/detail/9679">one-fifth of the population of the country have fled their homes</a>, corruption is rampant, Iran has extended it's influence into the highest levels of the government and, on average, <span style="font-style: italic;">only</span> 20 people are being murdered every day.jinchihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04611279045540819939noreply@blogger.com0