Stop Drinking and Start Doing, Dem Dumb Dumbs

Sober up, Dems.

You started sucking suds when you captured the Congress in 2006. Since 2008 you've been binge drinking with Congress and the Prez. You even nibbled on some hot wings and pub nuts. Burp!

And now the bartender just cut your drunk, lazy, liberal, progressive, leftie ass off. You dig, Dem dumb dumbs?

You thought you could just party like it was 1999. You can't take a beer bong and pour healthcare reform, trillions in spending and bailouts to fat cats down the average 'Merican's throat and not expect a fight. But, as usual, you didn't fight - you just kept doing Jager-bomb shots.

Let's not only blame the Prez for this election. Just go straight down the line - all the way to the grass root dumb dumbs who didn't lift a finger to dial up fellow dems to get them out of the bar and into the polls.

Too many Dems turned away after 2008, assuming the Prez and the Congressional majority would take care of "our" business. We drank up, while they did what we asked them to do. But, we didn't follow up on our end of the bargain - work our butts off to help them stay in office.

Look at yourself in the mirror. Can you say you worked as hard in 2010 as you did in 2008? Did you bring your neighbor to the polls? Did you give $$ to a candidate? If you didn't do that, how can you expect Joe the Bartender, Joe the Plumber, or any average Joe, to understand the complexities of the issues of the day?

How can you expect Joe to deal with this: the worst economy in two generations; soaring debt; jobs lost; home foreclosures, etc. That stuff scares the crap out of people. If you don't help them to understand that you're trying to solve their problems today - and for tomorrow - they're going to do exactly what they did: vote for the other team.

You have to expend energy to inspire 'Mericans to vote. Let's make a quick list of the "no shows" when it came to putting energy into this fall's campaign: Chris Dodd (thanks for nothing), the Prez, the Veep, Rahm "Windy City" Emmanuel, Chuck Schumer, John Kerry, Al Gore, etc. I'm sorry - you can't count the Prez's work in the final week as really getting it done; he should have been out there since labor day. Were you all having a beer in the Rose Garden?

Who deserves real credit for working his tail off? William Jefferson Clinton. He was busting his hump out there, putting his stent-laden heart on the line 24/7. Let's give the man some credit.

Learn from Bill: you have to work hard to win elections. Not other people - YOU! You have to get it done. You have to contribute time, energy, $$. If you can't contribute any of these, then you can't complain about the outcome.

To bring it back to a local level, look at Chris Murphy. He worked his butt off! I saw him in New Milford a few times - and I never saw Sam Caligiuri (if I had paid $100 to attend the RTC's Reagan Dinner, maybe I would have caught a glimpse of Sam C).

And I saw Ann Cutter (local Dem) leading Chris Murphy around the Harvest Festival. She worked hard the entire election cycle - organizing phone banks and other get out the vote efforts. Where was the rest of the local Dem leadership? Show up or shut up!

Here's the deal: You've gotta work hard lefties, or the righties are gonna kick your butt in 2012, too.

Party like it's Orwell's 1984

This summer, I read George Orwell’s paranoid dystopia novel, 1984. I have no idea how I managed to graduate from high school, let along college, without reading it, but, there you go. (And, all literary genius aside, I’m so glad I wasn’t friends with Orwell. Somehow I doubt he was ever the life of a party.)

Now that I’m done with it, I can safely say that I will never read it again. Not because it’s a bad book (it’s brilliant), or because Orwell’s prophetic powers were off (in so many ways he’s so dead-on-balls-accurate it’s frightening). No. I will not reread it, because I can go anywhere there’s a “Don’t Tread On Me” flag flying, and relive it, kind of like a Renaissance Faire or a Civil War Reenactment. Between the idea of perpetual war and the permanent underclass, the celebration of enforced ignorance, the rewriting of history, and “Newspeak” (Orwell was channeling Sarah Palin’s Twitter account, wasn’t he?!), I am certain most of the novel is actually set in a TEA Party rally.

Want an example of Orwell’s Oceania in “real” life? Look no further than this discussion between CT 5^th district Congressional candidates, Chris Murphy (D) and Sam Caligiuri (R).

http://www.housatonictimes.com/articles/2010/08/20/news/political/doc4c6dbc03cf24d674185404.txt

Let’s remember a few things: we’re in a recession. The worst one since the Great Depression. We all, no matter our political leanings, want to end the recession as soon as possible. And, while progressives and Democrats have suggested investing in economic stimulus projects to create jobs, services and infrastructure (like Grove St and Boardman Rd), Republicans have been screaming since, oh, November 6^th 2008, that we Must! Lower! The! Deficit!

Thankfully, our 43^rd president showed us the way to do just that. The huge tax breaks to the biggest earners are set to expire. This will return tax levels to Clinton administration levels. (Remember the great recession of the Clinton administration? Neither do I). And yet, suddenly, this is a bad idea. It’s a startling idea. It’s also, apparently, a plot cooked up by Obama.

So. Chris Murphy calmly explains how these expiring tax cuts will be good for everyone, and Sam Caligiuri repeats the same double-think talking points that every Republican across the country has repeated since Obama won the presidency.

Murphy: “If you are serious about deficit reduction, then I can’t see how you can support adding $700 billion over the next 10 years to the federal budget deficit by extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy when a millionaire is getting an extra $100,000 in tax reductions and a middle-class person in Waterbury is getting $20 a year.” (Duh.)

Caligiuri: “Small business owners I talk to in the district have said that they are concerned that those tax cuts might be there in January, and it can have an effect in them hiring again.”

According to Caligiuri, “If you tax the upper class more, then you’re going to have fewer jobs and less revenue.”

Because, in his world, you must be of the “upper class” to own a small business. And a marginal increase in the tax rate causes otherwise prosperous businesses to go belly up. (I’m guessing he also will tell us that a million bucks just isn’t worth what it used to be too.)

Murphy, dwelling in reality, reminds us, “People expand their businesses because they have more customers.” If you sell widgets, and people start buying your widgets faster than you can make them, you hire someone to help you make widgets. You may even bump up the price of your widgets. Regardless if your personal income tax rate is 28% or 31%. Because, dude, you’re selling more widgets! (And if that’s not how you do business, UR doin it wrong!)

It’s like watching a college senior debate Scooby Doo. Except not as funny.

Caligiuri is selling that old song, that asking top earners to bear a greater portion of the tax base than their mini – er, employees, is “wealth redistribution.” Which is communist, or at least French and gay, and could lead to dancing. Or a terrorist attack (I get lost after the “redistribution of wealth” part). Of course, this is pure bunk. The thing is, the Bush tax cuts of the last decade were a “redistribution of wealth” back into the hands of the very, very, rich, at the expense of the other 98% of earners.

But, don’t take my word for it.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/04/jonah-goldberg-anti-maldistributionist.html

There’s some nifty charts, some fancy economist words, and a well-supported argument that we are not in danger of sending our million- and billionaires to Siberia while we dirty proles dine on their Bichon Frises off their gold plates. Basically, we as a nation do not over tax our population, we do not play Robin Hood with the tax revenue, and we are not in danger of becoming French and gay.

Here’s a more plain-spoken explanation of the blatant hypocrisy of the “tax cuts save jobs” double-think:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/38720553

“Those who want to extend the Bush tax cuts make the following argument, among others. This is not their only argument: 1) The rich include many small business owners. 2) Small businesses are the primary engine of job growth. 3) If we raise taxes on the rich, they will not hire people or will hire fewer people than they would have under the lower tax rates. 4) Therefore, raising taxes on the rich will hinder job growth.”

But … we’ve been doing tax cuts for much of the last decade. How did they work out for jobs, growth, and small businesses?

They sucked at it. Why? Because:

“If there is no increase in business, no profitable reason to add to the payroll, no small business is going to hire people no matter what their tax rate is.”

Now, why did Bush enact those tax cuts in the first place? Because, in his world, Bill Clinton (remember when Bill Clinton was a socialist? Neither do I.) had imposed an unfair tax burden on the rich (those poor business owners, again). So, maybe if the Bush tax cuts hadn’t been enacted, the uber wealthy would have done even worse?

I dunno. I look at these numbers, from the oppressive Clinton tax era, and it doesn’t look like many of the “upper class” went hungry:

“In 1990, the marginal rate was raised from 28 percent to 31 percent and the higher rate bracket was changed to include income over $82,150 (previously it was $162,770). That year job growth slowed dramatically from about 2 million in 1989 to 321,000 in 1990. In 1991 there was a net loss of 857,000 jobs.”

This was under Bush Senior. (Remember his “No New Taxes” pledge? Yeah. Me too. But, hey, the guy was trying to pay for a war in a tiny, far away, oil-rich country. Because he apparently forgot that wars pay for themselves.) Here’s what happened under Bill Clinton:

“In 1993, two new high income brackets were created: For income over $140,000 the rate went from 31 percent to 36 percent; for income over $250,000 the rate went from 31 percent to 39.6 percent. In 1993, 2,791,000 new jobs were created on a base of 109,415,000. In 1994, 3,851,000 new jobs were created.”

I know, I know, I mentioned the C-word! And even though he shepherded America through a fantastic economic boom (and recovery from the Bush-41-era Recession), created millions of jobs, balanced the budget, and left us with a huge surplus, by taxing the super-rich at slightly higher rates than his predecessor, America did not crumble, nor did super-rich people find themselves homeless, penniless, or too scared to hire people and make more money.

http://www.kellysite.net/taxes.html

“ Not only was the entire national deficit eliminated after raising taxes on the wealthy in 1993, but the economy grew so fast for the remainder of the decade that many conservative economists thought that the Fed should raise the prime interest rate in order to slow it down.

“This is another of conservatives’ hidden agendas: they keep promising workers that if we cut taxes on the wealthy and the economy grows, their wages will go up. But when wages even start to go up—for whatever reason—conservatives do everything they can to slow down the economy.”

How’s that for double-think?

Of course, in true Orwellian fashion, many citizens on the Right have decided that the Bush-41-Recession was really Clinton’s recession, and the Clinton-era good times was Bush 43’s boom. Sigh. Or, if they can remember the reality everyone else experienced, they assume the Clinton boom was an aberration.

Too bad history doesn’t support that idea:

http://www.yalelawjournal.org/the-yale-law-journal/content-pages/why-tax-the-rich?-efficiency,-equity,-and-progressive-taxation/

“In Greek mythology, Atlas was a giant who carried the world on his shoulders. In Ayn Rand's 1957 novel Atlas Shrugged, Atlas represents the "prime movers"--the talented few who bear the weight of the world's economy. In the novel, the prime movers go on strike against the oppressive burden of excessive regulation and taxation, leaving the world in disarray and demonstrating how indispensable they are to the rest of us (the "second handers").

“Rand wrote in a world in which the top marginal federal income tax rate in the United States was 91% (beginning at taxable income of $400,000). This is an unimaginably high rate by today's standards, when the dominant view in Washington is that a marginal rate of 39.6% (the top rate from 1993 to 2001) is too high. The key turning point in the process of abandoning high marginal tax rates occurred in the presidency of Ronald Reagan. When Reagan became President in 1981, the top marginal federal income tax rate was 70%; when he left office in 1989, the top rate was 28%.

“The reduction of marginal tax rates in the Reagan years was driven by a new policy consensus that still persists today. That consensus is that high marginal tax rates on the rich come with an unaffordably high price for the U.S. economy in the form of reduced incentives for the rich to work and to save, and increased incentives to engage in socially wasteful tax planning. And yet 1957, when Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged and the top income tax rate was 91%, falls in the middle of the period from 1951 through 1963. Those were the golden years of the U.S. economy, in which the average annual rate of productivity growth was 3.1% (compared with about 1.5% after 1981). Of course, the growth might have been even faster had the marginal tax rates been lower, but the coincidence of high rates and high productivity raises challenging questions for those who believe that high marginal tax rates carry an unacceptable cost.”

Not that I want to eat the rich. I don’t want to punish them (well, except for the knuckleheads who melted down the economy, then walked away with millions while regular people watched their homes fall into foreclosure. Those guys … I want to punish. With plagues of boils or some other Biblically poetic means. But, failing plagues of boils …) I understand that returning to Eisenhower-style tax brackets is probably inefficient. There is only so far the super-rich can be taxed.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/08/how-much-revenue-would-millionaires-tax.html

It’s just, right now, the super-rich aren’t being taxed at a reasonable rate. There is a “vast redistribution of wealth” happening in this country. Wealth Trickles out of the pockets of the average tax-payer, up to the super-rich, where it apparently dissipates into off-shore accounts or gets spent on diamond-studded doggie collars.

This is probably best explained in a play:

http://www.skeptically.org/curpol/id24.html

Thank goodness we don’t live in George Orwell’s Oceania. This play was written nearly a decade ago. If this were 1984, Winston would long ago have slid this gem into a memory hole, or else rewritten it entirely.

I’d love to sit Sam Caligiuri down to a performance of Bush Tax Cut, and then ask him to repeat his talking points. I’d like to see how deep his double-think programming goes.

Actually, I’d prefer it if the voting public viewed it. Over Halloween Weekend.

Support For Public Option In Connecticut By District

Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com did a great job of breaking down some poll numbers for the Public Option on a district by district level and across the nation. I did a quick cut and paste of the numbers just for Connecticut:

The results beg the question of why some more of Connecticut's Congress critters are not leading the charge for the Public Option? They know the people want it and they have to know that it is the right thing to do.

It is an all around political winner and just plain old common sense good public policy.

Some important notes on this from Nate Silver:

We can systematize these results by means of a regression analysis that accounts for the Obama vote share and the poverty level in each district. (Technically, we'll be using a logistic regession, treating each of the voters included in one of these surveys as a separate data point.) This analysis finds that support for the public option nationwide is about 55 percent, against 36 percent opposed, similar results to what I believe to be the most reliable polls on the subject.

What's more interesting, though, is where we project the public option in individual districts. We find that:

-- The public option is estimated to have plurality support in 291 of the 435 Congressional Districts nationwide, or almost exactly two-thirds.
-- The public option is estimated to have plurality support in 235 of 257 Democratic-held districts.
-- The public option is estimated to have plurality support in 34 of 52 Blue Dog - held districts, and has overall popularity of 51 percent in these districts versus 39 percent opposed.

Obviously, there is a margin of error inherent to this analysis when applied to any individual district. The polls that inform this analysis themselves have a margin of error, and there is an additional layer of error introduced by the statistical process that we apply to the data.

There is some pretty good reasoning behind this data to tell the few Blue Dogs trying to stand in the way of the Public Option to suck it up and do the right thing, as well. Go and take a look at the data yourself. The information is a real eye opener as to where there is some really strong support for the Public Option even in some supposedly "conservative" districts.

Murphy Calls On Congress To Walk The Healthcare Walk

A release from CT-05 Rep. Chris Murphy:

Murphy Calls for All Members of Congress to Purchase Health Insurance in Health Reform Bill's New Exchange

NEW BRITAIN - After hosting public events in Waterbury, Danbury and Washington, Connecticut over the last two days, Congressman Chris Murphy (CT-5) is announcing today that he is returning to Washington, D.C. next week to call on Members of Congress to purchase their own health insurance on the health insurance exchange. America's Affordable Health Choices Act, the House version of the health care reform bill, will make changes to our current health care system so that more people can afford health insurance and increase choice through a health insurance exchange, which would force private plans to compete with each other and a government sponsored plan.

"For people and businesses that choose to go into the exchange, they will have access to better and cheaper coverage than they have today. There is no reason why Members of Congress shouldn't go into the exchange and choose between the public option and private plans like everyone else," said Murphy.

Murphy wants Members of Congress to be treated like employees of very small businesses are under the House reform bill. The bill states that in the first year of the law, employers with 10 or fewer employees will be able to have their employees purchase health insurance on an individual basis through the exchange. The employer would pick up the cost of, for an individual plan, 72.5% of the applicable premium and for a family plan, 65% of the applicable premium.

America's Affordable Health Choices Act also makes health insurance more affordable by providing tax credits to individuals and businesses to purchase it. While many people in Connecticut have health insurance that they like, premiums are going up and up. This summer, Connecticut's biggest insurer announced that it was increasing rates for individuals by over 30%. And a recent report found that 48,000 state residents, or 310 a week, will lose their health insurance before the end of next year because of increasing costs or other circumstances.

"We've got to act to bring down the cost of health care for people in Connecticut. If we are going to enact health care reform that the American people believe in, then Members of Congress aren't just going to have to talk the talk, we are going to have to walk the walk. I believe the health insurance exchange will be a good deal for people in Connecticut, and I am willing to place my own health care coverage needs in it to prove my faith in this effort," said Murphy.

For now, I've got nothing to add to that... As long as the public option is a strong one.

[update] A little extra from


Real Canadians Talk Real Healthcare

For those of you that just don't get what single payer healthcare is all about, via Karoli at US Health Crisis, real Canadians talk about healthcare:

Why this video? Why now?

In the spirit of truth, my friend Matte Black (@Shoq on Twitter) and his brother took their video camera to Canada on vacation to interview Canadians about their health care system. When we talked about it, I asked him to try to get negative views with specifics for balance. Here is the result. It has been edited for brevity, but the negative views were not removed, because there were none. He could not find one Canadian who thought they should kill the system. These are everyday people. They have no agenda at all other than being patriotic Canadians.

Please watch it and share it with as many people as you can.

I get a kick out of the responses to the co-pay question: "Co-pay? What does co-pay mean?" This is exactly what happens when the people demand a healthcare system that works for the people instead of for the bottom line of a corporation.

I lived in Canada for about 28 years.


I can't begin to list how much better everything is in Canada compared to the health care disaster we all suffer from south of the border. Cradle to grave, there is never any question about whether they will do everything they can to treat you in a reasonable amount of time.

I could walk in to my primary care physician any time he was open. If it was his golf day or something like his vacation time? I would go a couple of blocks down the street to another doctor. I chose those doctors based on my level of comfort with them.

My primary would even do house calls (probably still does?) if you or your kid were too sick to make it in.

If you had something so severe as to need more than what your typical primary could provide? Walk into the emergency room (or take the ambulance - they don't ask if you have insurance first because that would be inhumane). It is my understanding that they now have CLSCs in Quebec to cover the less severe emergencies like breaks, sprains, stitches, etc., that might just need the basics or to use when your primary caregivers office might be closed. This alleviates pressure on emergency rooms at hospitals so they can concentrate more on the serious emergencies.


My father was diagnosed with cancer not too long ago and given about six months to live.


He was treated by the best medical staff he could find for his specific problems. He also had a good backup for second opinions. He chose them based on how he wanted and needed to be treated and based on consultations with many caregivers. He lived 3 more years after that original dead end diagnosis and died in his 70s.

No healthcare or treatment is perfect but had he lived in the USA he very likely would have been uninsured because of pre-existing health conditions. In the USA he wouldn't have even had that "six months" diagnosis.

And never, not even once, did he have to make any healthcare decisions based on whether or not he could afford the treatment. He decided (as do all Canadians) in conjunction with and on the advice of his doctors. There was no insurance company in between them to turn him down.


The American system is as cruel to the poor and those that really need the medical help as it is profitable to the insurance companies.


Those are just some of the things I can say about the Canadian system.

Americans, in surveys, appear to be "more satisfied" with their healthcare providers than Canadians do. Maybe you don't understand this, being that you have had a crappy healthcare system all of your life...


That is because Canadians expect a lot more from their healthcare system than Americans do.


Never mind that the polls I have seen always point to satisfaction with providers BUT rarely address the cost and the mode of payment directly. Why? Because the few times we hear the voice of the people on this, for the most part, they say they hate their medical insurance companies.

My primary doctor in the US is great. He supports Single Payer. Most of the hospital people I have dealt with are great at their jobs, too. I always ask them and they support single payer by a large margin. My children have a great pediatrician and, yes, he supports single payer as well. Nothing to complain about the actual service providers. That side is pretty much equal to the Canadian providers. Some are better and some are worse, but competent and caring nonetheless. They want to give you the best service possible. And, for the most part, the majority of those providers want to give you single payer.

I am among the few that has half decent insurance. For how long, who knows? In this economy corporations are stripping workers of higher quality insurance for less costly junk plans. Our family's plan was changed to add higher co-pays and more restrictions on usage AGAIN, this year. And that is just a minor issue when many of these cash strapped corporations and small businesses are laying people off people all together so they have no insurance at all.

If our family lost our source of health insurance we know that our budget would eliminate any possibility of keeping coverage regardless of government's provision of the costly Cobra plans. On unemployment, we would struggling to keep a roof over our heads and the kids fed. Regardless of that, I expect more from my healthcare AND I expect it to cost a hell of a lot less. But that is because I have seen and lived with a better healthcare system than the one we have here.


I expect nothing less than Single Payer!


Of course, that does not mean I am completely rigid on this and unwilling to compromise. It is just a higher standard that could be attained in this country. More recently we have seen a lot of discussion on the public option, since single payer has been banned from the political discussion and the media's coverage of healthcare.

Fine.

Most recently some morons are saying that is the "Left of the Left" that are pushing for the public option and this supposed to be shocking news to be breathlessly reported on in the traditional media... As they continue their twisted and contorted takes on reality, let us look at who really supports the public option, OK?

67% of conservatives support having the choice between a public option and private insurance.


71% of Republicans support having the choice between a public option and private insurance.


77% of Americans support having the choice between a public option and private insurance.

For those politicians and media stenographers that have a problem with reading comprehension I took a moment to annotate this Survey USA graphic. There is your "Left of the Left" in RED and BLUE...




The black ink in the ledgers of insurance corporations is being balanced by the red blood of Americans.


Right now about 22,000 Americans die every year because they are under or uninsured. This has got to stop. Now... You could do nothing at all about this issue OR you could contact your Congress critters and hammer them to bring some semblance of real reform to healthcare. Americans are literally dying waiting for something to be done. And a public option, at the very least, will allow for the uninsured to get insurance and give the underinsured the opportunity to choose better insurance.

Now... As a final thought, some more healthcare experts from Canada:



Addendum: I wish that Obama would pay particular attention to the final message from the former Premier of Saskatchewan. A very simple and clear message of "Medicare for all", even if it is made as the default "public option", would go a long way towards providing a unifying message that everyone in the USA could understand as a really good thing. People understand how good Medicare is. Since there is literally a super majority of support for a public option, this would be the nail in the coffin of the insane rantings from the opposition to reform. Add to that the positive move of putting Congress into the same position as the rest of America and people will understand that reform really is about making healthcare better.

If Obama and the Conservative Democratic party members in Congress think that the super majority of Americans called the "Left of the Left" are going to be happy with just any reform... Then they are not paying attention at all and do not deserve the offices they now hold.

The liberal left has, in large part, already made all of the concessions they were willing to give when they let single payer go for the compromised "public option". And many of us will be very loud and very clear as the next elections come around in punishing politicians for failure to act in our interests.

In a few days President Obama will be meeting with the AFL-CIO leadership to talk about relaunching healthcare reform. I expect that we will see a clearer message from the President on what he wants from reform, since he has really had no clear messaging up until now.

Obama had better understand that he can either invigorate healthcare activists with a strong message of honest reform, including a public option that is even closer to the original Hacker proposal than anything we have seen, or he can fall flat on his face and all alone as allies in real healthcare reform desert him and the Democratic party members that are willing to push for more of the same.

NO GLITCHES in ConnPost Article

At MLN they have this up on the front page:

Glitches In ConnPost Article

ConnPost: "Glitches didn't affect election outcome" <read>

CTVotersCount.org: "Not So Fast, Please"

A ConnPost article gives a broad brush feel good assessment of the election. We are not ready to agree that everything went fine. We have no reason to doubt that the results were accurate enough that the voters' intent was realized in the results, however, we will wait for the results of the post-election audit and other analysis. Unfortunately, unless this audit goes much differently than the last three we will still be left with a level of uncertainty.

We also have some comments on the details in the article.

The Article says:

Some individuals filled in circles for Jim Himes on both parties.

"Those votes counted and would register under the Working Families party for qualification purposes.," said Bysiewicz. She said the machines would not reject those votes unless the ballot was filled out incorrectly elsewhere.

There must be some confusion on the part of the Secretary of the State or the ConnPost:

Fact: For voters that fill in bubbles for a cross endorsed candidate twice, they should be counted by the machine as Himes Unk (Unknown). When only one bubble is filled in then they would be counted for Himes Dem or Himes Wkf etc.

So unless the particular machine was programmed incorrectly, the article is incorrect.

There is no glitch in the article... I was at the New Milford Town Hall as the results were coming in and they had the exact same issue. I wrote about that on election night. We had the exact same problem with New Milford results for Murphy.

A couple of machines failed early on in Gaylordsville and at the Hill and Plain polling station. They switched them out and things rolled smoothly after that.

Murphy and Obama won. Appropriate NOs and YESs are winning. And Himes won too!

There has been some minor issues with people voting for candidates on their regular party line AND on the WFP line. The votes are, apparently, counted only once for the candidate BUT the vote is given to the WFP. (or something like that?) The software glitches on...

The ConnPost has it right. The votes were being given to the WFP if the voter filled in both lines for Murphy here. And the machines did not catch it.

Local Voting Info - New Milford, CT

Reposted and in light of an email request from a reader for local New Milford, Connecticut, voting info:

Find out where to vote!
For your local polling place...

Find Your Polling Place | Voting Info For Your State | Know Your Voting Rights | Report Voting Problems

According to the information I found there are no local town issues to be voted on. Just the candidates and the two statewide questions. I phoned the town clerk's office to verify this information to be true:

Warning
November 4, 2008

State Election

The electors and taxpayers of the Town of New Milford are hereby warned to meet at the respective polling places in said town on Tuesday, November 4, 2008, for the following purposes:

I. To cast their votes for Presidential and Vice-Presidential electors, Representative in Congress, State Senator, and State Representative.

II To vote on the following questions for the approval or disapproval of a proposed Constitutional convention and proposed AMENDMENT to the Constitution of Connecticut, a vote of “YES” being a vote for approval, and a vote of “NO” being a vote for disapproval:

1. Shall there be a Constitutional Convention to amend or revise the Constitution of the State?

2. Shall the constitution of the state be amended to permit any person who will have attained the age of eighteen years on or before the day of regular election to vote in the primary for such regular election?

The full text of such proposed questions with explanatory text, printed in accordance with §2-30a of the General Statutes, is available at the Town Clerk’s Office for public distribution.

Notice is hereby given that the location of the polling places is as follows:

Voting District Location of Polling Place
District 1 Northville School, Hipp Road
District 2 Catherine E. Lillis Building, East Street
District 3 Pettibone School, Pickett District Road
District 4 Gaylordsville Fire House
District 5 Schaghticoke School, Hipp Road
District 6 Hill & Plain School, Old Town Park Road
District 7 Sarah Noble School, Sunny Valley Road

Voting machines will be used. The polls will be open at six o’clock in the morning (6:00 a.m. and will remain open until eight o’clock in the evening (8:00 p.m.)

Absentee Ballots for electors and Presidential Ballots will be centrally counted in the Loretta Brickley Room in the basement of the Town Hall at 10 Main Street.

The final tally of the election will be in the E. Paul Martin Room in the the Town Hall at 10 Main Street.

Dated at New Milford, Connecticut, this 17th day of October, 2008.
George C. Buckbee
Town Clerk
New Milford

Please note that if you typically voted at the Lanesville fire department in the past, they have switched that District 7 voting location to Sarah Noble School because of the fact that they dead ended that street.

EVEN IF YOU ARE NOT REGISTERED YET YOU CAN STILL VOTE FOR THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN CONNECTICUT! It is the law. Bring your ID to Townhall where they should have special "presidential ballots" for your use. If you are registered to vote in New Milford, read on...

Also, in as far as the two statewide Constitution questions...

On question 1, most of the Democratic leaning Blogs seem to be in agreement that question 1 (having a Constitutional Convention) would be a bad thing and are pushing for a no vote:

The Connecticut Citizen Action Group (CCAG) urges a no vote on the question. As one of the organizations that has lead the fights to open up our political process (Direct Primaries, Campaign Finance and Ethics reforms) we believe a convention would be a waste of taxpayers' money and could be corrupted by the same special interests that our new campaign finance reform laws are designed to protect us from.

Proponents of a convention either do not understand the process or are deliberately trying to mislead the public by saying that the vote on November 4th is about initiative and referendum. If the vote passes it is then up to the legislature to determine the process for selecting delegates to the convention. This will likely be done through a costly special election and primaries. The convention is then convened, which will result in additional costs to the state. The delegates may or may not propose amendments to the constitution, which would be subject to a future popular vote. There is no guarantee that what the proponents of the convention are arguing this vote is about will be included these proposals.

It is plausible that many of the proponents of a convention would mask their real motivation due to the unpopularity of some of their ultimate goals. Connecticut does not want to ban a woman's right to choose or to allow discrimination against same sex couples. Advocates of these and other radical positions realize that they cannot win enough legislative races to accomplish their goals so they are trying to push a convention to create a new avenue for their fight. Their gambit will have significant costs for the state at a time we are facing a huge deficit. I am confident their stealth agenda will ultimately be rejected.

There is a high likelihood that the delegate selection process will be driven by lobbying and other big money interest. It is not surprising that special interests are looking for new ways to exert influence as Connecticut embarks on the first election cycle under our public financing system. The new system has been a smashing success with over 75% of candidates voluntarily participating. It has been praised across the country and will result in a state government more accountable to voters not special interests.

Costly to the taxpayers and could potentially run counter to the spirit and idea of the many recent campaign financing rule changes in Connecticut, and never mind the tendency of radical right wing groups, like the Family Institute of Connecticut (FIC), to push costly campaigns on to the ballot that will never pass in the real world. It is no coincidence that the fringe Heritage front group, FIC, is one of the groups pushing this agenda. They have little in state support or participation from Nutmeggers and the FIC is the quintessential example of an Astroturf group. Their sole purpose is to try and create a false perception of "grassroots support" for generally repulsive legislation that the majority does not support. They use money and vocal twits to agitate the process and create those perceptions.

To put it bluntly, FIC has more money... Yet, I have more readers (both in and out of state...) But the FIC uses out of state soft money and out of state sister group members to finance and create a fake movement and to get media access. And they want to amend the Connecticut Constitution?

I suggest using your middle finger on that "Hell NO!" vote for question 1.

When it comes to question 2, on allowing people that will be old enough to vote in the election to vote in the primaries if they are only 17, it seems like a reasonable way to help ensure our younger generation learns the civic responsibility of voting as soon as possible. If they will be able to vote in the elections, they should be able to help pick the candidate they want to vote for.

Those were my long answers... The short of it is to vote:

• NO on question 1
  
• YES on question 2

Just my suggestions and reasoning. :)

[update] I drove around New Milford to check out a couple of polling stations (District 2 Catherine E. Lillis Building, East Street and District 3 Pettibone School, Pickett District Road) this morning to look at the traffic AND there was a little traffic and no real lineups to get into vote this morning. When I stopped to get coffee at the grocery store I reminded everyone I talked with to vote today. One guy said he had already voted at a polling station that I hadn't driven by (District 7 Sarah Noble School, Sunny Valley Road) and he said that voting took less time than paying for his milk and bread at the grocery store. Another young lady that worked at the store said she was excited to be voting for the first time. Much like in the past elections, getting to the New Milford polling stations early will save you a lot of time. Usually, they start to get really busy in the mid-afternoon.

I'll try and update you with more local voting information through the day during the day. HatCityBlog is doing the same thing for the Danbury area.

And from the Working Families Party, a party that you might want to consider supporting because they are issues oriented in darned good way:

Working Families Party Works to Push Candidates Over the Top
Minor Party Pushes Message of Economic Security Across the State

As Election Day begins, Working Families Party volunteers and
canvassers spread out across the state in a final push to make the
difference for Working Families endorsed candidates. Over the last six
weeks, Working Families has knocked on 50,000 doors in an effort to
make the difference for candidates across the state that have pledged
their support for Working Families' priority issues, like affordable
healthcare, good jobs, and reducing taxes on middle class families.

"With everything happening in the economy it's understandable that
voters are angry and frustrated," said Brian Petronella, President of
UFCW Local 371 and a co-founder of the Working Families party in
Connecticut. "Change is the buzz-word this election. But if you want
to vote for change like you really mean it, vote on the Working
Families line."

Established in 2002, the Working Families Party has seen rapid growth
throughout the state by using the unusual strategy of
cross-endorsement. When a major party candidate is cross-endorsed by
Working Families, the candidate's name appears on the ballot twice:
once on the major party line and again on the Working Families line.
Proponents of the strategy say it allows voters to "send a message" to
support the Working Families positions on economic justice issues.

Working Families is supporting more than 85 candidates across the
state – mostly cross-endorsed candidates also being supported by a
major party.

With the nation experiencing one of the worst economic slumps since
the Great Depression, the idea of sending politicians a message to
stand up for working families has widespread appeal – across the
political spectrum.

"I think the Working Families Party offers voters something unique and
appealing in this election – a chance to vote for a party that
champions economic issues that matter to middle class voters while
still supporting a major party candidate – typically a Democrat – who
can really win the election," said Paul Filson, Director of the
Service Employees International Union in Connecticut.

Working Families top priority for Election Day is helping to Democrat
Jim Himes over the top in his hotly contested race against incumbent
Chris Shays. Working Families organizers are hoping to appeal to
voters who are frustrated and worried about the economy and
disappointed with both major parties.

Working Families is a minor political party formed by a coalition of
community organizations, labor unions and neighborhood activists who
united to fight for a fair economy. The Working Families Party was
formed to inject issues like healthcare, quality education, and
livable wages into the public debate, and to hold politicians
accountable on those issues.

[update] I've been going around from polling site to polling site in New Milford. At about 2:30 there was already over 1200 voters in District 2, District 6 had around 1340 by 5:00, District 7 was over 1600 by about 6:00 and all of the other Districts, though I don't have exact voting numbers for them all, are on pace for record voting numbers. At every site there are poll sitters for Murphy and NONE for Cappiello. I have been going from place to place poll sitting with all of them and the "Vote no on question 1" people that are out, as well.

Things are looking good if the large numbers translate into real change...

Acorn Droppings

Aldon Hynes over at Orient Lodge has been on top of sorting out the issues from the non-issues involved with the GOP's assault on Acorn in Connecticut.

This is problematic in many different aspects. Perhaps most troubling is that it shows a disregard for due process and the American belief that people, and organizations are innocent until proven guilty. Yes, two complaints have been filed. As noted above, there is good reason to question these complaints, and I believe that the SEEC will do an appropriate job in investigating the complaint and taking proper action.

The other concern is that instead of trying to make sure that “Everyone who is eligible has the right to register and vote”, Mr. Healy is calling for an end of a very successful and at least by every indication I’ve seen, properly run, voter registration effort.

Brad Blog has a whole bunch of it too:

So, Where's That ACORN 'Voter Fraud'?!

So far, nobody's been able to offer us a single instance of voter fraud as committed by ACORN, or even by any of the 1.3 million registered by them over the past two years. You sure wouldn't know it if you listened to the crazed rightwingers...

• McCain Was ACORN'S 2006 Keynote Speaker
  Video: Tells crowd they are "what makes America special"
  
  
• Brad at UK's Guardian: 'The Republican Voter Fraud Hoax'
  
  
• 1.3 Million Reasons for the GOP 'Dixie-Chicking' of ACORN
  
  
• See BRAD BLOG's "GOP ACORN 'Voter Fraud' Lie" page for more...

My suggestion when it comes to Acorn?

Grab a beer, read those sources... And then tell the GOP to go fuck themselves and their attempts at short cutting Republican voter caging efforts to its source based on the fact that Americans are registering to vote en masse because they are so pissed at Republicans and they can't wait to vote for candidates like Barack Obama and Jim Himes.

Heck... With the mob tied Cappiello running in CT-05, some Nutmeggers are probably even excited about voting for Chris Murphy.

Chris Healy is DWI if he thinks anyone is going to help him suppress the legitimate rights of people to vote just because he is tired of having to drink away the daily hangover of working for the GOP. Nobody in Connecticut is fat, drunk and stupid enough to take Chris Healy's low road on this issue.

Mickey Mouse tried to register to vote?

Whoopde-fuckingdoo! The GOP can grow up and get back to me when Mickey Mouse actually shows up on election day and tries to vote.

Does anyone discount the probability that Republicans filled out some of the fake cards to try and fabricate an Acorn scandal? And it really is a non-issue from the get go as long as the people paid to process the forwarded registration cards and the poll workers do their jobs.

More Illegal Cappiello Donations

Yanked in its entirety from ctblogger at HatCityBLOG:

First it's the illegal bundled campaign donations from James Galante, now it's this.

The State Elections Enforcement Commission adopted a stipulated agreement today to settle a case which originated from a referral by the United States Attorney.

The settlement was reached with two attorneys from the Danbury area: Jack Garamella and Christopher Leonard. Both are partners in the law firm Collins, Hannafin, Garamella, Jaber & Tuozzolo, P.C. Each attorney paid the maximum $2,000 civil penalty under these facts for making a contribution in the name of another. Jack Garamella gave $500 to Chris Leonard and asked him to make a $500 contribution to the 2004 re-election campaign of State Senator David Cappiello, because he did not wish to be identified as giving a contribution to a Republican while he was seeking the Democratic office of Judge of Probate.

Leonard made a prohibited contribution by accepting the money, and then writing a check in his name to the Cappiello campaign. The Commission imposed the maximum civil penalty as it considers this a serious violation. Concealing the true source of a candidate contribution frustrates the purpose of disclosure laws.

UPDATE: Click here to read the stipulated agreement between Garamella, Leonard, and the State Elections Enforcement Commission.

UPDATE 2: Cappiello speaks...and his comment is predictable:

"I was stunned," Cappiello said.

Hmm, this reaction sound familiar...oh yeah, Cappiello's reaction to James Galante's contributions to his campaign. You remember, the trash hauler with ties to the mob who also gave illegal bundled campaign donations to former State Senator Lou DeLuca and Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton.

"He was a philanthropist - at least I thought he was," Cappiello said.

A philanthropist...yeah, got'cha!

Robocall Watch CT-05 Edition

Apparently a Republican attack dog, Freedom Watch, is planning on running a robocall campaign against House Rep. Chris Murphy:

Freedom’s Watch, the conservative advocacy group that has vowed to spend millions against Democratic congressional candidates this fall, will be running robocalls this week in 16 congressional districts where Democratic incumbents seem vulnerable or where an open seat has given rise to a competitive election.

The robocalls will focus on the issue of high gas prices.

No Nutmeggers... It's not the Enron-esque practices of the oil industry, where the oil industry owns leases on millions of acres of undeveloped oil and refuse to develop them, or unregulated market speculation, nor the lack of refineries needed to actually meet today's demand. And it's certainly not the result of illegal invasions and occupations.

It's that pesky 5% to 10% in taxes (depending on your state) that are the direct result of gas more than doubling in price at the pumps.

And Freedom Watch is out to piss you off with those insane Republican robocalls full of complete and total BS.

Previously brewed in New Milford:

Republican Lies About Offshore Drilling

environmentalist from dKos cuts through the GOP's BS concerning offshore drilling:

First of all, there is no "ban".

"Ban" is just more GOPer-speak. In reality, there is a moratorium on drilling in certain coastal areas. Other areas are not only open to drilling but leases and drilling permits have already been issued.

And they are not being drilled.

In fact, only 17% of the leased areas [are] in production. So, with about 33 million acres of offshore areas already available to drill and not being drilled, why does the oil and gas industry need to have access to still more? The fact is that nearly 25 BILLION barrels of oil off the coast of the United States is currently available for drilling...and industry is not drilling it.

Not to mention natural gas. Most of the natural gas occurring offshore (over 328 TRILLION cubic feet – an eleven year supply at current consumption rates) is currently available for leasing and development.

And they’re not going after it.

This is the story throughout the country, more than 44 million acres of onshore public lands are leased for oil and gas development and yet most of it is not being drilled. All told (onshore and offshore), 68 million acres are leased and sitting idle. Over 10,000 permits are currently 'stockpiled' by industry. But still they want more.

Between 1999 and 2007, the number of drilling permits issued for development of public lands increased by more than 361%. And did you see your gasoline costs drop? How about your electricity costs? Propane? natural gas? Uh...no. There is absolutely no correlation between the industrialization of public lands and the price of fossil fuels.

It has been estimated that if all of those currently inactive leases were drilled, the USA would produce an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas EVERY DAY, accounting for a doubling of US oil production and a 75% increase in US natural gas production. The Minerals Management Service tells us that about 80% of fossil fuels available in offshore are currently available for development.

What's going on here is yet another cynical attempt by the GOP and the oil and gas robber barons to increase and assure huge industry profits at the expense of the American people. These companies don’t want to drill these areas. They want to hold them as [assets] to limit the amount of oil and gas on the market so that prices rise still further - and they make more money.

Republicans and the oil industry are lying to America out the ying yang on this. Surprised? I didn't think so...

CT BOB interviews Rep. Chris Murphy

From Bob Adams, aka Ct Bob:

Congressman Chris Murphy from the 5th CD joined me for an interview on Saturday morning. The video covers topics such as the 2006 election, the Supreme Court, the Constitution, current bills before the House, and Chris's impressions from his first term in Congress. The entire interview runs 22 minutes.

Telecom Immunity and Chris Murphy

We already knew that he Rep. Chris Murphy opposes immunity for the telecoms but just to be on the safe side, and with another vote in the House coming up that includes immunity in it, I had to give a call. The gentleman that answered Rep. Murphy's phone (Call NOW! 202-225-4476) assured me that Chris Murphy would not support any legislation that included immunity.

The only reason I am posting on this is the fact that we need to remain vigilant on this issue. You know for a fact that there are a few in the right wing noise machine that are cranking out phone calls, Emails and faxes (never mind the GOP's failed fearmongering campaign) trying to persuade Representatives across the country to toss the Constitution in the garbage.

Fortunately the majority of Americans are against immunity for telecoms for the obvious reasons that it is illegal and unconstitutional, and I made certain to point that out in my phone call. Make sure that your voice is heard loud and clear.

You can find contact information for your Congressional Representative here. There is also a petition you can sign on to over at PFAW.

Lakoff Disagrees With BooMan & Rude Pundit

And I disagree with them too.

I am not one for framing debates. Much like BooMan, I think that there is an inherent dishonesty in playing with people's emotions and minds in order to score a political point. But that still does not change the fact that I see things that "they" are doing and could not disagree with "them" more. And my gut tells me that we have to hit meet them head on with a loud and resounding "HELL NO!" And, IMHO, that has nothing to do with framing... It has to do with reality.

The other day BooMan posted this:

I've been trying to find the right words to describe the MoveOn.org advertising fiasco on General Betraeus. I think The Rude One found the right balance.

Obviously, the Rude Pundit doesn't believe in the Bob Shrum/DLC school of cautious political rhetoric, where you try real hard not to piss off the other side 'cause they might hit back. The language of inclusion, though, need not be the language of capitulation. Let's put this in historical perspective: You're Tom Hayden. Let the Rude Pundit and others be Abbie Hoffman. Out here in the blogworld, we can say shit like "Petraeus/Betray Us" because, well, shit, that's what we do. Let us be the dirty fuckin' hippies.

We need you to be mainstream, MoveOn. We need you to be the grown-up. The mainstream media is distracted by shiny objects. Don't actually try to dangle a sparkly charm in front of them.

Yeah...basically.

Sorry dudes... I heartily disagree with both the idea and the reasoning. Here, Lakoff gives his position on this and for a change it has less to do with framing an issue, and is more about the cold hard reality:

MoveOn Ad Exposes the True Betrayers

(excerpt from page 2)

"The issue is this: Who has been betraying the trust of the American people -- including our troops -- in bringing about the American invasion of Iraq and in continuing the occupation? What were the acts of betrayal and with what consequences? And is a betrayal of trust still going on, and if so where, how, and by whom?

I have developed a deeper look at these issues. You can read that in my new article Iraq and the Betrayal of Trust. But meanwhile, let's talk about one of the traps we should stay out of: The Politeness Trap.

Bush took advantage of certain conventions of etiquette and politeness when he sent Petraeus to testify before Congress. Those conventions hold that one does not criticize the symbolic stand-in for the military, even when the uniform-wearing stand-in is on an overt political mission that is at the heart of the Administration's continuing betrayal of trust. Decorum can be put to political use, and Bush did just that.

Bush was using a familiar right-wing tactic: identifying himself with a military uniform and the stature of the military in general, when he had no military stature himself. Rudy Guiliani used the same tactic in his ad in Friday's New York Times: by associating himself with Petraeus' rank and role, hoping some of the stature of the military would rub off on him. The implicit message is an attack on MoveOn: in pointing out Petraeus' deception, MoveOn, so Giuliani implies, was being disrespectful of the military itself. This is a typical right-wing attack on progressives, and progressives shouldn't stand for it. They should not be allowed to hide behind the troops. The troops themselves have been betrayed."

Here is the political reality as I see it today:

MoveOn was right. They didn't write any facts that most reasonable Americans would dispute. Did they use harsh words in a flaming sound byte? Yep... And rightfully so. These harsh GOP tactics deserve nothing less than to be hammered with facts.

It is an outrage that these neocon wannabes would get their panties all twisted in a knot over MoveOn pointing out the obvious and, even worse IMHO, is having some Dems run from the facts.

This "polite" political tactic may cut it with the hardcore vote-Dem-until-they-die crowd, but the rest of the political nation is going to point out the absurdities of the Dems playing this game of footsie under the table, and playing it by the GOP rules. I am very disappointed, to say the least, with the repeated wishy-washy mixed signals sent by Dems. Someone has to stand up to the bullies in the GOP, and the Dems aren't doing it.

Forget about "Mommy" Democrats and "Daddy" Republicans and fuck thinking about the god-damned elephant and to hell with being polite about it all... The lefty-Bloggers are the ONLY adults and the Dems are the little kids that can't/won't fend for themselves. And, for a change, MoveOn got something right.

The truth is that all that Petraeus adds to the debate is nothing more than another layer of bush propaganda and lies, and the sooner you act on these facts the faster an honest debate on Iraq policies will begin.

Previously brewed in New Milford:

Connecticut's very own JR. Senator, Joe neocon Lieberman, bloviates in another WSJ propaganda hit piece claiming that "advocates of withdrawal risk making the exact same mistake" (Which mistake Joe? Of being completely and totally correct and making you and your warmongering republican brethren look like total failures and lunatics AGAIN?) and, meanwhile, support for the continued occupation of Iraq is slipping even further both in Iraq and the USA to the dismay of Republican operatives currently hitting the airwaves to share their rosy propaganda pictures.

Iraqis currently overwhelmingly oppose the presence of coalition forces to the point where the support of violence against the occupying coalition forces is rising.

Seventy-nine percent of Iraqis oppose the presence of coalition forces in the country, essentially unchanged from last winter – including more than eight in 10 Shiites and nearly all Sunni Arabs. (Seven in 10 Kurds, by contrast, still support the presence of these forces.)

Similarly, 80 percent of Iraqis disapprove of the way U.S. and other coalition forces have performed in Iraq; the only change has been an increase in negative ratings of the U.S. performance among Kurds. And 86 percent of Iraqis express little or no confidence in U.S. and U.K. forces, similar to last winter and again up among Kurds.

Accusations of mistreatment continue: Forty-one percent of Iraqis in this poll (vs. 44 percent in March) report unnecessary violence against Iraqi citizens by U.S. or coalition forces. That peaks at 63 percent among Sunni Arabs, and 66 percent in Sunni-dominated Anbar.

This disapproval rises to an endorsement of violence: Fifty-seven percent of Iraqis now call attacks on coalition forces “acceptable,” up six points from last winter and more than three times its level (17 percent) in February 2004. Since March, acceptability of such attacks has risen by 15 points among Shiites (from 35 percent to 50 percent), while remaining near-unanimous among Sunnis (93 percent).

Kurds, by contrast – protected by the United States when Saddam remained in power –
continue almost unanimously to call these attacks unacceptable.

Acceptability of attacks on U.S. forces also varies by locale, peaking at 100 percent in Anbar, 69 percent in Kirkuk city and 60 percent in Baghdad, compared with 38 percent in Basra and just three percent in the northern Kurdish provinces.

Remember that one of those things that the lying Surge ESCALATION supporters are touting are the successes in Anbar. Anbar, where there is a 100% acceptability among locals of killing American and other coalition force occupiers.

Remember that speech just last week from the preznit about the successes in Anbar?

Bush said he was encouraged by the update he received today from Petraeus and Crocker and touted recent progress especially in the Anbar province.

“I was pleased with what I heard,” the president said. “The strategy we put in place earlier this year was designed to help the Iraqis improve their security so that political and economic progress could follow. And that is exactly the effect it is having in places like Anbar.

Bush said continuing this progress is vital to meeting the strategic interests of our nation.

“We can’t take this progress for granted. Here in Anbar and across Iraq, al Qaeda and other enemies of freedom will continue to try to kill the innocent in order to impose their dark ideology,” Bush said.

“I am going to reassure them that America does not abandon our friends. And America will not abandon the Iraqi people. That’s the message all three of us bring,” Bush said.

If Anbar is the success story, then it is obvious that bush is looking to replicate this 100% support for killing coalition forces across Iraq as a "key to a secure, stable Iraq." As you watch "All three" of them - Bush, Petraeus and Crocker - feed their propaganda and lies to Congress in the next week, remember these successes they had previously been touting in Anbar.

And take note of the fact that the warmongering set have refused to back up any of their supposed successes with real numbers, nor do they appear to have a credible way to support the validation of any numbers they might claim.

In fact, as near as we can tell, a lot of the numbers, the key metrics about what's actually happening on the ground remain classified.

And not just the numbers themselves.

A few days ago we flagged Karen DeYoung's piece in the Washington Post about critics questioning the alleged decline in violence in Iraq. And one key point she focused in on is the methodology that the folks in Baghdad are using to derive their numbers. Is it really true that it matters how a person is shot (in the front of the head or the back) for whether or not they get counted? Is it true that we're not counting Sunni-on-Sunni or Shia-on-Shia deaths? Or even killings by the folks we're now allied with in al Anbar province?

The best we can tell the methodology Petraeus's staff is using to tabulate the numbers also remains classified.

In other words, it's not just a matter of getting the numbers from Petraeus and his staff and deciding whether you believe them or not. They won't even tell us what the numbers are -- let alone how they came up with them.

There is little wonder why more and more Iraqis are asking us to leave as time goes on. The death count numbers are bleak even if they may be skewered by bush fuzzy math:

The AP reveals that a “briefing chart prepared by the Defense Intelligence Agency says what Gen. David Petraeus won’t. Insurgent attacks against Iraqi civilians, their security forces and U.S. troops remain high.” Most of the insurgent attacks in Iraq continue to be focused on U.S. forces, as the chart shows:

Attacks are up, or have remained pretty much the same, even when you take into account the manipulation of data by the liars that are spewing them out as their idea of success. The only decline? Iraqis have figured out how to avoid killing Iraqis and shifted their focus, and sharpened their aim, on to coalition forces. The Iraqi puppet regime has figured out that the real numbers of casualties are hurting the failed bush administrations' quest for eternal war, so the neoconservative hands up the Iraqi governments asses are are playing the "hide the truth" game from the UN by denying the UN access to Iraq Health Ministry stats:

One of the most credible Iraq-casualties tabulations, crunched by the United Nations, was lost this year after the Iraqi government, embarrassed by the high reported death toll, refused the U.N. access to Health Ministry statistics.

And it's not hard to see why: here are the 2006 numbers from the U.N., month by month, versus an AP-reported month-to-month breakdown of figures compiled from the Iraqi ministries of defense, health and interior.

Jan 06: 1700 UN -- 549 Iraqi ministries

Feb 06: 2100 UN -- 545 Iraqi ministries

Mar 06: 2250 UN -- 769 Iraqi ministries

Apr 06: 2200 UN -- 686 Iraqi ministries

May 06: 2669 UN -- 932 Iraqi ministries

Jun 06: 3149 UN -- 885 Iraqi ministries

Jul 06: 3590 UN -- 1062 Iraqi ministries

Aug 06: 3009 UN -- 769 Iraqi ministries

Sep 06: 3250 UN -- 1099 Iraqi ministries

Oct 06: 3600 UN* -- 1288 Iraqi ministries

Nov 06: 3400 UN -- 1846 Iraqi ministries

Dec 06: 2800 UN -- 1927 Iraqi ministries

If I've made any mistakes in compiling this, I'll adjust as necessary. But here you can see the discrepancy in determining how many Iraqis died each month in 2006 alone.

Is there any doubt that the bush numbers for 2007 are even more dubious? The Iraqis that manage to survive this colossal failure can see the death count around them on a daily basis. There is little doubt why they want us to leave Iraq. But...

How badly do Iraqis want us to leave Iraq?

So much so that less and less Iraqis care about the incompetent and corrupt Iraq security forces and the failed puppet regime government being propped up and aided by coalition occupiers:

"How long do you think US and other Coalition forces should remain in Iraq?"

The autumn 2007 poll reflects growing disillusionment with the occupying forces' presence in Iraq. There is a growing consensus among respondents that coalition troops should leave the country immediately.

Some 47% of respondents now back an immediate withdrawal, compared with 35% in February.

The poll also shows dwindling support for troops remaining in the country, even in support of the Iraqi government and security forces. Only 10% of those surveyed favour coalition forces remaining for that purpose.

Iraqis want us out... So much so they overwhelmingly support killing us in order to get that message across and they really don't care about the disaster that bush and the neocons failures will leave behind. In other words: Don't let the IED hit you on the ass on your way out!

But how do Americans feel about all of this?

Check out this key number buried in today's New York Times/CBS poll:

As you may know, a report about the situation in Iraq by General David Petraeus, the Commander of U.S. forces, and others is scheduled to be released next week. If the report says that the situation in Iraq is IMPROVING, what should the U.S. do next: should the U.S. increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, keep the same number of U.S. troops in Iraq as there are now, decrease the number of troops in Iraq, or remove all its troops from Iraq?

Increase 6%
Keep the same 32%
Decrease 39%
Remove all troops 17%

So, even if Petraeus says that the surge is improving things, a solid majority -- 56% -- will still favor removing some or all of the troops. Of course, this number could be related to the fact that in two polls now -- by The Washington Post, and by Gallup -- solid majorities say they don't expect Petraeus to honestly assess the success of his own performance. So no wonder majorities are saying his testimony won't affect what they want for Iraq.

Hey! Americans are starting to get used to the fact that anyone associated with the bush administration will lie to anyone that will listen to them when it comes to keep their endless war alive.

Today General David Petraeus will, reportedly, get up in front of Congress and ask for more time to continue this complete and total disaster:

General Petraeus will go before Congress this afternoon to argue that the surge is working -- that sectarian killings and attacks against Iraqi and U.S. forces are substantially down. The military's secret numbers will serve as support for those conclusions, even as numbers from within the government (e.g. those collected by the Defense Intelligence Agency) dispute them.

If Petraeus does this and continues to cite the kind of success that has been previously reported he will be lying to Congress, and doing so at the behest of the bush administration given the fact that we know they were to write what was purported to be his report. Apparently, now, they are afraid to put these lies on paper and will not actually file a report. We only have their "good word" to go on now. This will be just another in a long line of impeachable offenses to add to the bush resume if he carries through on this, also, leaving Petraeus open to legal problems of his own.

General Petraeus, lying to Congress is a crime.

Let's just repeat that fact over and over. Because that's what Petraeus is planning on doing on Monday, as Karen DeYoung (in an article buried on page A16) explains clearly. Go read the whole article, closely, for a description of the many methods of the Administration's hocus pocus. But I'd like to focus on one particular tactic.

Which brings us back to Joe neocon Lieberman:

MoveOn has a hot new ad in today's NYT pointing out that Petraeus' statements differ from all the known metrics out there. And boy has it made Sanctimonious Joe pissed. Not surprisingly, Joe is trying to call in those chits he got for agreeing to caucus with the Democrats in January.

The personal attack on Gen. David Petraeus launched today by Moveon.org is an outrageous and despicable act of slander that every member of the Congress -- Democrat and Republican -- has a solemn responsibility to condemn.

General Petraeus has served his country honorably and selflessly for over thirty-five years. He has risked his life in combat and accepted lengthy deployments away from his family to defend our nation and its citizens from its enemies. For this, he deserves the respect, admiration, and gratitude of every American -- not the disgraceful slander of Moveon.org.

It has been widely reported that Moveon.org has worked closely over the past months with many members of the Democratic Party in coordinating their efforts to derail the strategy that General Petraeus has been leading in Iraq.

[snip]

As a member of the Senate Democratic caucus, I therefore call on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to denounce Moveon.org in no uncertain terms for its vile attack on Gen. Petraeus. General Petraeus deserves no less.

Mind you, Joe doesn't address the central allegation that MoveOn makes--that Petraeus is lying to Congress. Which he'd have to do to prove his own accusations about slander. Rather, Sanctimonious Joe says we've got to honor Generals, even if they lie to us.

Many of the recent words out of bush, Petraeus, Crocker, and neocon warmongering set mouths have already been refuted many times over. The GAO has already established the complete and total failure on achieving the benchmarks. And previous statements have already betrayed General Petraeus' willingness to spread propaganda for the bush administration:



But the difference this time is that he will knowingly be getting up in front of Congress to tell these lies, and we, the vast majority of Americans, all know it well ahead of time.



Although he has already betrayed the USA by spreading bush propaganda, much like the mistake Joe Lieberman has continually made, we will all be watching to see if Petraeus goes the distance in a typical bush fashion and perjures himself in his testimony to Congress over the next little while.

[update] ctblogger has more on the MoveOn addy and Joe's typical republicanism...

Ahh, the ol' 9/11 Iraq Al Qaeda card being used again by Lieberman and the war-mongers.

[update deux] Just a reminder of what the Surge ESCALATION was really about all along... "STAYING THE COURSE!"

Just how much of this is dressed-up "Stay the Course!" BS? Take a look at this graph showing troop levels past, present and future (If the incompetent bush gets his way):

Note: Proposed Surge Assumes 20,000 Troops (Graph H/T Tparty)

WHOA! Is this a familiar pattern? And someone out there representing CT supports this rinse and repeat policy? Sure enough, Bush can always count on Joe Neocon Lieberman:

And lo and behold... We are right back to "STAYING THE COURSE" so that bush can try to punt his failure off on to the next administration. Bush got what he wanted with the last re-escalation, and I guarantee you that as soon as the few soldiers that come back after this most recent surge have finished their minimum time in the USA they will get another flight back to Iraq to RE-ESCALATE this Iraq hole even deeper than it has already been dug.

Rinse... Repeat... Rinse... Repeat... Rinse... Repeat... etc. ad infinitum

The Liberal Journal notes some other oddities in recent news:

Oh, just so you know the real end game if you haven't figured it out already: today's Wall Street Journal is revealing that the U.S. is planning to build a military base on the Iran-Iraq border.

Perfect timing--you probably won't hear that on tonight's nightly news.

Yeah... Perfect timing for the warmongering set.

[update trois] Chris Murphy responds to General Petraeus' testimony:

Dear Friends,

Today, General Petraeus attempted to put a positive spin on a failed policy. While the General highlighted some notable military successes, other credible reports underscore the lack of real progress we have made in Iraq. The Government Accountability Office’s report released last week shows the Iraqis have failed to achieve fifteen of eighteen benchmarks. General Jones’ report states that the Iraqis are far from being able to take over for their own security. And the daily news reports out of Iraq paint a grim picture. Our Armed Forces, stretched and deployed nearly to the breaking point, have done their duty bravely and courageously, but the ends to which they have been directed – the political stability of Iraq - are increasingly beyond their control.

This surge isn’t working and General Petreaus effectively admitted this today. This summer has been the bloodiest yet so far for U.S. troops in Iraq, with 264 soldiers killed. There is indisputable proof that this strategy has not accomplished the basic goal laid out by the President in January – giving the Iraqis breathing room to achieve political consensus. To grant this Administration an extension of this failed policy would not only put our soldiers at greater risk, it would put this country as a whole in a more perilous position.

I hope that today marks a new era in our national debate on Iraq. The President must face the facts - achieving military success will not lead to Iraqi political success.

Every best wish,
Christopher S. Murphy

Ain't nobody holding their breath on a reasonable response like Murphy's coming from the Lieberman warmongers' camp for lying republican children...