Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch, finch, beech
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Still No Going Back
Susan the Bruce
Tomorrow's Progressives
Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Primary Wire
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch
Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
Ann McLane Kuster
John Lynch
Jennifer Daler
ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC
National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo
50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Michael Mullen also are expected to announce the creation of a group to assess how to carry out a full repeal of the decades-old "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which requires gay soldiers to keep their sexual orientation secret.
But Gates and Mullen are also expected to tell senators that it could take years to integrate gay men and lesbians fully into the military, defense officials said. Two appointees will be named to oversee a group that will draw up plans for integrating the armed forces, according to sources familiar with the Pentagon's deliberations on the subject. The planning effort is expected to take up to a year.
Among the issues to be addressed by the group: whether gay soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines will face any restrictions on exhibiting their sexual orientation on the job; whether the Pentagon will be obligated to provide for their domestic partners; and whether straight military personnel could be compelled to share quarters with gays
What a foot-dragging, anemic, crock of shit.
"Years to implement?" It's really very easy: Just end it.
The military already has MANY gay and lesbian members SERVING AND FIGHTING AND DIEING. It is NOT a question of figuring out "how to let them in." THEY ARE IN ALREADY. Straight soldiers are ALREADY COMPELLED to share quarters with gay soldiers, just as white soldiers are COMPELLED to share quarters with black sodiers (gasp!)...and military preparedness and unit cohesion does not suffer.
But individual soldiers do suffer.
A group of soldiers are on leave or having a little down time at a local watering hole. Many of them comment on the tail they hope they get, or wolf-whistle at the waitress they call 'sweetheart,' and comment among themselves as to how hot she is. This of course, is normal, red-blooded American Boy-talk, right?
But one of the soldiers in their midst has to pretend. He has to force a smile, or force a stupid comment or become 'suspect' by the others. He can't be who he is, or say what or how he feels. Because if he does, he loses his job, his health insurance, his honor, his pension.
Elsewhere, a group of soldiers are talking about how they miss their wives and children, and sharing stories of Christmas and breakfasts and vacations, and how they can't wait to see them again. But another soldier is forced to lie, saying there is no one in his life, no one to go back to. If he admits to having a partner, he avoids or invents that partner's name...becasue if he shares his longing, too, he loses his job, his health insurance, his honor, his pension.
Oh, he's good enough to shoot and fight and die. He's good enough to serve, and receive medals and honors - As long as he lives in a closet of denial, as long as he shares nothing, as long as he avoids friendship with others in his platoon, as long as he holds everything so close to his chest that no one gets in.
President Obama, as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and as the Head of the Executive Branch, with one penstroke you can end DADT dismissals just as Harry Truman integrated the military. It's time to do it NOW, before another American hero loses his or her lifetime contribution to our nation because of your cowardice.
I say quiet because rarely does it get talked about, like so much that is going on in the new administration under the radar of the screaming media. Here is something I didn't even know about, from John Judis.
(Keep the faith, trueblue. - promoted by Dean Barker)
It was one year ago this week that my employer, a software firm in Manchester, told me I no longer had a job. Major customers had canceled their pending purchase orders because of the deteriorating economy. My employer could no longer pay my princely salary which was already 25% less than what I was earning thirty months earlier.
In the past twelve months, despite sending out resumes every week and working my contacts, I've landed six interviews. That's counting Target and U-Haul, places that would pay less I'm getting on unemployment.
As the President said on Wednesday night, "The devastation still remains."
Consider this an open thread for State of the Union Watch Parties.
Manchester Watch Party:
Co-hosted by Drinking Liberally Manchester and NH Change That Works
When: Wednesday, January 27 from 8:00-9:00 PM
Where: A Caribbean Affair, 915 Elm Street (next to Shaskeen)
RSVP: Facebook
Teddy would understand because he never dogged an election...you got to stand up for peoples' rights. Never think you've got it won, that's rule one in campaigns I've been on. Never assume you've won.
Martha Coakley in Oblerman's words,'bought the stamps and mailed it in' in referring to her concession speech, and her campaign.
On one level we have to wait for the gaming of Congress, as it now congeals anew.
Meanwhile back in the real world...
'now you've seen the light...you gotta stand up for your rights"
(Still time contribute to Cheshire Dems Inauguration Anniversary Celebration. Looking forward to seeing Hamsters and Candidates tonight in Keene. - promoted by Mike Hoefer)
During election cycles Cheshire County voters elect the highest percentage of Democrats of any county in New Hampshire. To keep that distinction, the Democratic Committee organizes events, conducts Get Out The Vote canvasses, and provides logistical support to Democratic candidates. Our political community spends time and money to ensure voters are exposed to Democratic candidates and their message.
The title is a trick question for me as well as others. We look at the history of the past century and see that war doesn't have to be inevitable. Until it is.
The history of warfare is long and ugly. I look at it through art, as in Picasso's "Guernica", or the Schiller book on the Thirty Years' War someone gave me, complete with pictures from the time. Ever see a graphic depiction of someone being drawn and quartered? Not pretty.
Then there is the collateral damage. People die who have nothing to do with the conflict, except being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
http://www.facebook.com/home.p...
My thoughts on President Obama's Afghanistan speech
We are at war with Al Qaeda because they attacked us - and we need to make sure they cannot do it again. I am committed to finding the best ways to keep Americans safe.
I am sure this was a very difficult decision for the President. Unfortunately, the problems in Afghanistan exist in large part because the Bush Administration took its eye off the ball and got us bogged down in an unnecessary war in Iraq.
While I am pleased that the President has decided to set a timetable for drawing down our troops in Afghanistan, I do not agree with the decision to first send 30,000 additional troops. It is not clear that sending more combat troops is the best way to meet the real threat, as Al Qaeda disperses to Pakistan and other countries. This is particularly important as our military has been strained by six years of fighting in Iraq and eight years of fighting in Afghanistan.
I believe we need better cooperation and accountability from the Afghani government and we must demand a commitment from them to root out corruption. Instead of more troops, we should be sending more trainers to help the Afghan military provide better security for its citizens. Rather than a broad counterinsurgency, we need a narrowly focused mission, with clear, measurable goals for success. Our involvement can't be a blank check, and I appreciate the President's attempts to focus our mission.
While I would have made a different choice, I will of course support our troops in their mission. I very much hope that this new strategy will succeed so that we can begin bringing our soldiers home, give them the full support and veterans' assistance they deserve, and focus on the great economic challenges we face here at home.
PS - A month ago, I shared my thoughts on this issue as well.
http://www.facebook.com/notes/...
One of my Facebook friends is upset about the new mammogram guidelines and wrote, "This is not the change I voted for". I commented: "Close your eyes and imagine President McCain and Vice President Palin. She replied, "I see what you mean."
There is a diary here asking whether to boycott the DNC, Organizing for America and Obama's reelection campaign. People have every right to do this, as well as to criticize the seemingly slow pace of change.
I feel as frustrated as the next person, but then I realize the mess we're in wasn't created during eight years of Bush, but during thirty years of an assault on everything progressive that came before, especially the New Deal. Also during that time there has been a severe backlash against women's rights. Stupak-Pits is only the outer manifestation, the boil, if you will, on a much deeper abscess.
There is a diary up at Daily Kos outlining some of what President Obama has managed to accomplish. It's not exhaustive in that there is so much left to be done.
We strive to be, if anything, a participatory space around here, and I've had a question come to my inbox that is very much deserving of our attention.
To make a long story short, our questioner wants to know why, on the one hand, despite the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, also known as the "stimulus"), unemployment in the construction industry continues to increase, and, on the other hand, why there is such a giant disparity, on a state-by-state basis, in the cost of saving a job?
They're great questions, and, having done a bit of research, I think I have some cogent answers.
So we are now finding out the answers to some of our questions about which members of Congress actually represent We, the People...and which ones represent, Them, the Corporate Masters.
We have seen a Democratic Senator propose a policy that would put people in jail for not buying health insurance and a Democratic President who has taken numerous public beatings from those on the left side of the fence for his inability to ram something through a group of people...and yes, folks, the entendre was intentional.
But most of all, we've been asking ourselves: "why would Democratic Members of Congress who will eventually want us to vote for them vote against something that nearly all voting Democrats are inclined to vote for?"
Today's conversation attempts to answer that question by looking at exactly how money and influence flow through a key politician, Montana's Senator Max Baucus-and in doing so, we examine some ugly political realities that have to be resolved before we can hope to convince certain Members of Congress to vote for what their constituents actually want when it really counts.
There has been a lot going on with the debate over health care reform at the federal level. It seems both regular and "Blue Dog" Dems are reaching consensus on the so-called opt-out plan. This would allow states to opt out of the public option by legislative or popular vote.
Brian Beutler at TPM:
A Baucus aide tells me "Senator Baucus will look closely at this proposal, as well as other proposals, and could consider supporting them as part of an overall package as long as it achieved his health care reform goals while getting 60 votes."
On the other side of the party, Howard Dean says, if he were a member of the Senate, he would vote for the proposal, not because it's his ideal public option, but because it would represent real reform.
Nate Silver has this to say about public option "purity"
Some of the usual suspects are out this morning with criticism of Tom Carper's compromise proposal to insert a robust public option into the Democrats' health care bill, but allow states to opt out of it by legislative or popular action. I'm not going to call these people out by name because I consider some of them friends and they're doing good, important, productive work. But this compromise is leaps and bounds better than most of the others that have been floated, such as Chuck Schumer's proposal to have a public insurance option that would be forced to negotiate at private market rates.
Bloomberg reports the results of a Quinnipiac poll that indicate the Republicans are losing more ground with their attempt to blockade this necessary reform.
Months of Republican attacks on President Barack Obama's health-care proposals appear to have hurt the party, according to a Quinnipiac University poll.
The survey found 64 percent of voters disapproving of the way Republicans in Congress are doing their jobs, with 25 percent approving. Also, 53 percent had an unfavorable opinion of the party in general, while 25 percent rated it favorably.
I don't remember seeing the sausage making aspect of legislation so up close and personal before. Was there this much coverage of Bush's irresponsible tax cuts for the wealthiest of the wealthy? Or the run up to the invasion of Iraq? (Judith Miller not withstanding)
I read an interesting recent poll by Public Policy Polling on extremism in America titled "Is extremism becoming more mainstream?
According to the poll, 23% of Americans believe the President wasn't born in the US. Among Republicans, the insanity level is 42%, with 21% unsure and only 37% correctly answering he is an American.
That's an amazing situation- more than 3 out 5 GOPers have doubts about whether our President is an American. I don't see how you get bi-partisanship with numbers like this. It does explain why so many GOP legislators won't say what they believe when they are questioned on the Birther issue: the choice is to be seen as crazy or to tell the truth and risk being dumped by their party. Who wants that?
So it's the day of the big speech, Mr. President, and we got trouble with a capital "T" right here in Health Care City.
What are you gonna do? Do we follow the traditional Democratic Party legislative process of passing...something...at any cost, assuming the entire time that the Left and the Netroots will "go along with the program", or is there a risk that the calculus doesn't work as well today as it did in 1994 and 1996?
Well, lucky for you, I'm a fake consultant, and I know a few things about your "target market", so before you answer that question...we need to talk.
We are coming down to the home stretch on healthcare, and we have seen the results of the first couple of rounds of crazy that have been sent forth in an effort to stop the process.
In addition to the Town Halls, opponents are flooding the email inboxes of America's "low information" voters with no end of lies. Those emails are getting passed around and around and around, and by now some of them have probably appeared in your inbox.
But it's summer...and who has time to respond to this stuff?
Well, guess what, Gentle Reader: I've already done the hard work for you.
Today's story is an email response that you can send right back to your "inbox friends". It's a reminder of some of the frustrations that we all share in this country and some explanations of what's being proposed...and a few words about socialism, to boot.
So get out there and copy and paste and forward and reply, and let's see if we can't fight the madness, one email at a time.
It's so incredibly over-the-top, even for the worst of the wingnut faction.
Since when has it become a bad idea for schoolchildren to see and hear the President of the United States urge them to work hard and value education?
It would be laughable if it wasn't so sad. Derek Thompson has a somewhat amusing take on this over at Atlantic Online.
If anyone even whispered the kinds of ridiculous and disrespectful things these morons are spouting while either Bush was president, the selfsame morons would have called it nothing short of treason.
They apparently wish for the children not to do well in school; carefully maintaining their level of ignorance better serves their agenda in the long run.
This is not the America I was raised to believe in.
