Fitz!

Pach!

Any polls out on the Lamont race? Does anyone think he has a chance?

Pach, you have some gibberish (html?) in your article.

Fitz, Rootz, and Kweehs Rool!

neuro: where?

rwcole: I know of no polling since the convention.

Maybe the glbt community should take joementums backstabbing as a compliment. For years they’ve said they want to be treated equally and here it is, a shank in the back from the man who has put a shank in all our backs.

Seriously though, all snark aside. Why would you support Lieberman, Gay rights issues aside. He has done nothing for the American people(besides shit on them and rub it in) as a whole let alone the gay community. Supporting the status quo is the worst thing anyone could do in a sutuation like we are in and I for one am very glad that people are turning on Lieberman.

God. These HRC yutzes are gonna get some serious Jane-NARALing from me.

Very timely Pach. Thanks. I was absolutely sickened to see Hillary Clinton kowtow to the women haters like coffin Joe recently.
The proper treatment of GLBT’s and women’s right to choose are non negotiable netrootz demands.
Candidates who remember at all times that they are public servants will prosper – those who bend over forward like Vichy democrats will wither.
ALL POWER TO THE ROOTZ!

“We seek him here, we seek him there, those Americans seek him everywhere. Is he in heaven–is he in hell? That damned elusive Fitzernel.”

Nice interview! Good solid, hard-hitting questions. I’ll bet it at least spurs a review from within their own ranks.

Lieberman deserves to be hit hard on the Alito vote! There is no excuse imo. On that note: why so little uproar over the Kavanaugh confirmation? An awful horrible result – how did this unqualified partisan hack not get filibustered?

Get off homosexual agenda and get on fake war agenda. You’re free to get married if you want, no one can stop you. Making it a political issues just detracts from much more important issues like the unjust killing of women and children

Pach: in your interviews with Lamont and Mings. A lot of stuff inserted like (I don’t know whether WordPress will print that…)

I’m sure it would be an interesting research subject for some sociologist to examine the morphology of special interest groups. They seem to be started out by people who are committed to a particular point of view. These people have very clear goals that they make the entire point of their organizations. As time goes on, the organizations lose these people one way or another, and become, for lack of a better word, “corporate”. They are dedicated to preserving themselves, and have a greater or lesser interest in doing whatever their original task was. I usually suspect a nonprofit has reached this point when professional telemarketers call me to ask for donations.

If you look at what’s happened to NARAL, MADD, or the Sierra Club, they’ve followed this path. My guess is that HRC has, too. Do they use professional telemarketers yet?

There’s probably some time after which such organizations should just be disbanded, to be replaced by organizations that still care about the cause enough to risk their existence for it.

rootz!

Great article and interview, Pacha, you really held HRC’s feet to the fire. These tired tux-wearing cocktail-weenie sucking corporatists who claim to represent us are running a tired non-profit model into the ground. And — get a clue, HRC! — not getting back to a blogger after 72 hours? That shows how ready their gate is to get crashed.

HRC is not just unclear about cyberspace — they’ve opened a “store” at 19th and Castro where tourists can buy HRC bumper stickers and hats, thus undercutting the local AIDS-prevention-benefitting non-profit retail operation halfway down the block. Local activists are unhappy they’ve muscled in at the bricks-and-mortar level. HRC hoovers cash to DeeCee and pretends they’re looking out for us, but their Lieberman endorsement — and your interview about their actual results at the Federal level — shows they’re impotent.

Thanks for this — well done!

Does anyone else see the odd words and symbols in the interviews above? If it makes any difference, I have a Dell PC with Windows 2000, and I am running on MSN.

realitycheck — you’re likely to learn quite soon just how kindly our blogmistresses take to advice like yours, so directive and cocksure!

neuro: I don’t see it.

I want to know when it was exactly that advocacy groups such as the Sierra Club and Human Rights Campaign began to morph into corporations that forgot just what their missions were in the first place. ANYONE can look good when they vote in Congress, but Lieberman’s “short cab ride” quote should preclude ANY progressive advocacy group from supporting him.
The responses from Mike Mings lead me to believe that he has no idea why the group endorsed Joe Lieberman, other then he’s an incumbent who happened to cast a vote once against the Federal Marriage Amendment. That’s sad.

17-
I see it too, but I can read around it.

Scorecards seem a singularly uninformative means of assessing a politician. I remember a few weeks ago someone mentioned one such group that measured how liberal Senators were. It turned out on the votes they counted 90% of Democratic Senators scored 90% or higher. I bet you didn’t realize what a bunch of liberals we have in the Senate. I didn’t either. Still don’t.

Yep, I see the weird words and html coding too.

Must be from the cut-and-paste from the original microsuck Word transcription.

you’re likely to learn quite soon just how kindly our blogmistresses take to advice like yours, so directive and cocksure!

Why are you such a big fan of the idea of cracking down on dissenters? Are you in the Bush administration?

The article looks properly formatted to me. There are a number of superscripts, which may not be rendered properly on all browsers. Stuff like the 106th Congress, etc.

Fortunately, all the gay people who actually vote (you know, all eleven of us, okay I’m kidding, it’s 37 of us) have already plugged into the Lamont campaign. For anyone who hasn’t, you all probably have a listserve or Yahoo! group that you can send a note to your CT pals to consider Ned, which I have to the tune of untold dollars (untold because I want you to believe it was more than it was, don’t worry, I’ll have more before primary day).

Let me paraphrase Natalie Maines here:

I’m embarrassed that I share the same first name with Joe Lieberman.

Oh, BTW, HRC can stuff it.

Many non GLBT people like me, understand that GLBT’s request that they be treated fairly and equally as American citizens. We must support the GLBT community in their quest for equal treatment under the law. In so doing, we help to put down the fascist/right wing/religious agenda whose purpose is to further degrade and dumb down our society so that the people will continue to vote against their own interests. Good work Pach!

The only weirdness I see in the post is a really funky sentence within the interview:

“FDL: NOW and NARAL have looked, and race and have begin to approach their endorsement decision differently..”

Another great post, Pachacutec.

Use of the legislative scorecard by groups like HRC suggests laziness on their part. Apparently they will favor an incumbent with an OK score card on a very select range of issues over a challenger who may actually hold positions that are more in the organization’s interests. T

o compare the two fairly and effectively, they would need to do more in-depth research, interview the candidates, and give considerable weight to those candidates’ constituents, including members of the state chapters of their organizations.

I would have liked to ask Mings whether their endorsement formula automatically favors incumbents. If so, it discriminates against truly outstanding candidates who could really advance their agendas, like Lamont. Stupid.

I am very interested in finding out whether they used the votes on Alito and how they scored the votes–does Joementum get 50 percent credit if he voted for cloture but against Alito on the meaningless confirmtion vote? The cloture vote is the only thing that should count. I am surprised someone in Mings’ position would not know what their endorsement criteria are.

Really a great interview, Pach. I wish the MSM would make even half that much effort to get at the truth.

Looks fine to me.

Thanks, Pach, for doing this work to push the national groups to think outside their “scorecard” boxes and hopefully put some focus on longer-term agendas which will lead to the kind of policy shifts that we all want, and that realitycheck (in a flawed and blunt way) also asserts.

Marriage is not the issue, progressive thought is. Equality, real human rights, fairness, the ability of anyone to “make it” and be true to themselves. If we move towards politicians that think that way, we will not have fiascoes like the Iraq war. The “religious” hatemongers like Joe Lieberman, Dobson, Bush, Etc… want entrenched power and are willing to crush innocent brown children to get it, just not white fetuses.

neuro: I think he says pretty clearly that their system favors incumbents.

Great work, Pach! I was about to use the apt phrase “feet to the fire,” but I see TeddySanFran beat me to it. I can only hope that this kind of solid, straightforward approach to issues that matter becomes a model for others in the blogosphere who aim to help us determine which candidates deserve our votes and support and which are wolves in sheeps’ clothing.

More power to you, and onward Roots…

This is another reason “Crashing the Gate” has to be done. It seems all institutions begin to deteriorate once established, and gentle or firm revolutions need to continue. Hopefully, this can be done by voting, etc., but if not, newly energized members need to take up the fight.

any way you know to make them change thier minds?

Whither bureaucracy (or, Why do organizations all seem to only end up working for themselves and not you)?

You might want to start with the criticisms of Max Weber’s idealized bureaucracy to understand why organizations (which are really nothing more than bureacracies), seemingly as a rule, devolve from their original service purpose to self service.

I think it applies.

Yeah, you can look it up on Wikipedia.

Great job Pach. I was thrilled to see a gay couple included in the first one of Lamont’s commericals. As far as the Human Right’s Chamapagne, it’s all about their parties from my experience.

I quit giving to the HRC once they built that monstrousity of a building as their new home. They could have rented something and spent our donations more wisely. So not suprised they have their heads up their collective a$$ on this one.

Always great commentary from you Pach!

Did you know Judge Walton ruled on the LIBBy request for reporter’s material? Went both ways, yes to some,no to others.

Way OT but I missed all the Boehner on Power from below and I want to drone on and long on this.

I have a little different take on the Constitutional issues for the Jefferson docs, more in line with lhp’s position I think, from what I have read so far, so fwiw.

As to the actual ability to go into the office and search – I do not think that there is any Constitutional prohibition on going into the office of a legislator, provided it is pursuant to a duly issued warrant and provided that the search/seizure is conducted in a manner that does not unduly interfere with the legislative activities. Since this happened on a Sat night, not in the middle of a day where Jefferson’s office was rushing a bill he was co-sponsoring to the floor, I don’t really see any Constitutional argument on the office being searched pursuant to warrant.

As to seizure of docs – that is where a possible rub may come in, but I don’t think we know enough to know if there will be an issue.

Here is the Section of the Constitution:

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the sameSpeech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

In sum and summary, skipping the first sentence, this Section has been interpreted to balance the ability of the Executive and Judicial branches with respect to criminal conduct of a legislator, against protecting the activities of a legislator that are clearly a part of the legislative process, even if based on bad motives. So, for example, over time the privilege from Arrest while Congress is in session has been construed very broadly, such that where the arrest is based on criminal activity of any type, the Sup Ct has held the privilege fails. Not just for Treason, Felony, etc – but any criminal activities.

In the past and on at least the Arrest issues (also pursuant to warrant), the Clause has been interpreted broadly to not interfere with the ability to pursue criminal charges against a legislator. Couple that with the fact that there is nothing in the Clause precluding (warranted) search and seizure at all, as opposed to the specific reference to (warranted) Arrest.

To the extent you are talking about search only, done pursuant to a warrant and in a manner to minimize impact on normal legislative activities, I don’t believe there is much of a separation of powers issue – I like the Gov’s side of this argument. The bigger question seems to go to what was seized. The Section does extend protection to things a legislator does that are clearly a part of the legislative process.

Where you have public corruption cases, there is a line that is being walked. In general, while no one is supposed to be allowed to delve into the motivations and actions in respect of normal legislative activities (see U.S. v. Johnson, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/…..ge=183#183 Prosecution under a general criminal statute involving inquiry into the motives for and circumstances surrounding a congressional speech is barred even though the gravamen of the offense is the alleged conspiracy rather than the speech itself) this privilege is not extended to the actions of taking bribes to influence future legislative acts (see U.S. v. Brewster http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/…..;invol=501 Speech and Debate Clause does not protect all conduct relating to the legislative process, such as bribery charges that do not necessitate inquiry into legislative acts or motivation)

So IMO, it boils down to what was seized as to whether there is any implication of the Speech and Debate clause. Brewster seems fairly clear support that documents or evidence relating to making promise for future acts in exchange for a bribe are not privileged under the Clause and there is nothing that I see in the 4th or in the Speech and Debate Clause that extends privilege from search and seizure for evidence of a crime maintained in a Congressional office. Brewster:
Taking a bribe is, obviously, no part of the legislative process or function; it is not a legislative act. It is not, by any conceivable interpretation, an act performed as a part of or even incidental to the role of a legislator. It is not an “act resulting from the nature, and in the execution, of the office.” Nor is it a “thing said or done by him, as a representative, in the exercise of the functions of that office,” . . Nor is inquiry into a legislative act or the motivation for a legislative act necessary to a prosecution under this statute or this indictment. When a bribe is taken, it does not matter whether the promise for which the bribe was given was for the performance of a legislative act as here or, as in Johnson, for use of a Congressman’s influence with the Executive Branch. And an inquiry into the purpose of a bribe “does not draw in question the legislative acts of the defendant member of Congress or his motives for performing them.” 383 U.S., at 185 .
Less clear would be the right to search for or seize any documents or evidence relating to actual legislative acts taken and motivations behind such acts. For example, in Johnson several Congressmen were charged with conspiring and attempting to influence DOJ to drop pursuit of mail fraud indictments against an S & L. One of the things allegedly done in furtherance of that conspiracy was the making of a speech favorable to savings & loans on the floor by a member. The Court held that these actions – making of a speech on the floor – could not support a charge no matter what the motivation and held that charges and conviction relating to that speech, even if it was for pay, as a part of the “conspiracy” must be set aside [note: there was not a separate bribery charge for the speech in Johnson]. However, the Court said that the govt could retry the conspiracy charges as long as they expunged matters relating to the privileged matter – the motivations for the speech.
I know that seems semantics, but the cases seem to support being able to pursue evidence of taking bribes for future actions, bc the bribe is the activity charged. Where the action that is “actionable” is the speech itself, bc, for example, the speech itself is an element of the conspiracy you are charging (i.e., that the speech was the instrumentality of the improper activity of conspiracy to attempt to improperly influence DOJ) that is a different thing than arguing that someone has taken a bribe. So where an element is the actual legislative act (influencing DOJ not by holding a gun to the head of a DOJ atty or FBI investigator – but by making a speech on the floor) then that is not a proper subject of inquiry or charge and by extension it would seem to me to be not a proper subject for seizure or search of documents. However, where the element is another action – the acceptance of a bribe, then Brewster says pursuit of that crime is not prohibited by the Speech and Debate clause and I think by extension evidence of that is appropriate for search and seizure.
The illegal conduct is taking or agreeing to take money for a promise to act in a certain way. There is no need for the Government to show that appellee fulfilled the alleged illegal bargain; acceptance of the bribe is the violation of the statute, not performance of the illegal promise.
There may need to be in camera review by a court to determine that the docs fall within the right categories, but I have a feeling that Gov has this one covered – esp bc I think a Judge would be extra careful in issuance of a warrant to try to make sure this one is covered.
Another interesting article:

http://lawprofessors.typepad.c…..peech.html

I vaguely recall Human Rights Campaign making another vile and loathsome endorsement….

Ah, here we are: their disgusting endorsement in 1998 of Alfonse D’Amato over Chuck Schumer for New York Senator. (As much as I hate Schumer for his votes and statements abetting the incineration and torture of brown people in faraway lands, he’s been consistently good on GLBT issues, at least according to an AIDS activist friend of mine.)

HRC’s Dep Director for Electoral Activities doesn’t know how his own scorecard was scored? He doesn’t know whether the Alito votes were part of the calculations? He apparently hasn’t even looked at the speeches and actions of the challenger?

What is it about folks like this that have the rightwingnuts scared of “The Gay Agenda(tm)”? If this is how HRC leaders operate, methinks Falwell, Sheldon, and their fellow travellers can sleep easy.

Except for one thing: Pach and FDL are on the case.

Be afraid, r-wingers. Be very afraid.

libby’s team wins a discovery decision

http://www.editorandpublisher……1002576622

Thanks, Pach, great homework. It’s time for this lazy scorecard nonsense to end and for groups like HCR to stop giving legitimacy to people like Lieberman who don’t do shit for their cause. Lieberman is blasting it everywhere that he got this endorsement and people who only read the headlines are going to think it means something.

I also think it’s very important that you point out that while these national organizations are totally whored out, the local grassroots people know WTF is up and aren’t falling for it. It’s quite key that Ned is getting the support of people who really know what’s going on.

Pach, I reread the interview, and you are correct that he does say they favor incumbents. It sounds as if, in the case of an incumbent they generally like running for reelection, they base it all on one side of the equation–the incumbent’s votes on a narrow range of issues. This approach would seem to ignore the other side of the equation–the challenger’s positions on issues and whatever evidence there is of the strength of his support for those issues (evidence such as information gained from consulting the organization’s chapter in the state in question). Very short-sighted in my opinion. I didn’t see anything in the interview to indicate that Mings was even familiar with Lamont, much less his positions on GLBT issues.

Petterr, re: his knowledge of the scorecard. . I was wondering when someone would bring that up. It’s totally outrageous.

Judge Orders ‘Time’ to Turn Over Libby Documents — ‘NYT’ Spared?

Published: May 26, 2006 1:30 PM ET

WASHINGTON A federal judge on Friday ordered Time magazine to turn over documents for a White House aide to use in his defense to perjury and other charges in the CIA leak case.

The order by U.S. District Reggie B. Walton also said the New York Times might have to turn over some information but reduced the scope of documents the newspaper and other news organizations would have to provide to lawyers for the defendant, former top vice presidential aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby.

Citing a lack of relevancy, Walton said that Judith Miller, a former Times reporter, doesn’t have to provide two notebooks, her phone records or appointment calendars to lawyers for Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff.

WASHINGTON (AP) 1:57 PM — “A federal judge on Friday ordered Time magazine to turn over documents for a former White House aide to use in his defense to perjury and other charges in the CIA leak case.”…

“Walton said Time magazine must provide Libby’s lawyers with drafts of first-person stories that reporter Matthew Cooper wrote about his conversations with Libby because the judge said he noticed inconsistencies between them.”…

“‘This slight alteration between the drafts will permit the defendant to impeach Cooper, regardless of the substance of his trial testimony, because his trial testimony cannot be consistent with both versions,’ Walton wrote.

It is unclear from Walton’s ruling what those inconsistencies are.”

I’m interested also in the context of this interview, Pacha, because your subject seems so thoroughly unprepared for the questions. Has all of DeeCee gone Powerpoint? Is there no one who is able to think when confronted with questions?

Followup questions (with some depth required in the answers) were pretty unexpected by your interview subject. Sure, he’s a nice guy, I guess, but he has little respect for the interview and very little interest in its outcome, given the silence since it happened (and his commitment to you to get back with answers).

neuro: exactly. They have a formula. The formula has been designed by their bipartisan donors.

Does anyone else see connection here? What do you think would happen to HRC funding if they actually represented a progressive agenda, rather than one designed to sustain the status quo?

Is it just me, or does Ned have the opportunity to be the first truly Netroots candidate. The guy in TX (names escapes me) showed the power, but was too late.
I can’t wait to get Holy Joe out of the Senate, even my family, Zionists to the core are giving up on this guy.

Thanks Pach…I just sent them a letter saying I will NOT be giving them a donation this year or ever UNTIL, they stop endorcing fraudulent candidates like Rape Gurney Joe…..My partner and I have spoken to many of our friends and they will be writing similar letters. Let’s see what kind of response they give.

. . . the need to solicit funds leads to a “bipartisan” stance that creates a stragetic gameplan that in turn undercuts the very agenda these national groups ostensibly represent.

Bingo.

“reality”check #13:

Fortunately, some of us can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Is there a term for trolls who insist that you have to focus on their issue exclusively, and that no one should try to deal with anything else until the “most important thing” is taken care of?

Teddy:

I got the call back after leaving a voice mail requesting an interview, during which I identified myself as a writer for FDL and wherein I described the subject matter in play.

It would seem that there is no way for a non- incumbent to get HRC’s endorsement. It is a closed system, Lamont has no scorecard.

I just wonder how low a score an encumbent would need to have before someone at HRC had the radical idea of listening to what the candidates actually say, maybe asking a few questions, then endorsing the best candidate.

Votes in Congress – while important – mean nothing if you don’t understand their context. Kerry’s whole “for it before I was against it” mess is a perfect example.

National groups like HRC, Sierra Club, or their rightwing counterparts want a simple “here’s why to vote for X” piece to hand to voters, and preferably want it to appear that there’s no “interpretation” going on. “Hey, I’m just looking at the data . . .”

Sorry, folks, that’s GIGO.

Some votes matter more than others (cloture, anyone?). Sometimes abstaining is because you were out of town on legitimate business, and sometimes it means you want to duck a hard choice.

Sometimes, it pays to think.

“Put the scorecard on the table, your hands in the air, and back away slowly, Mike!” And don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

Way to stir up the nest, Pach!

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. %u2014 That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, %u2014 That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

>>>>>
Here comes the revolution!

I think there is a story here for the MSM, if they wanted to do a little reporting: talk to grassroots GLBT activists in Connecticut and find out how much opposition there is from them to the national HRC organization’s Loserman endorsement.

RW cole

I do know that NY DFA loves lamont. He was a big topic of conversation at the annual convention last month.

I believe some NY dems are planning to cross the border towork for him, since our senate and gov’s races are forgone conclusions.

I wonder how much the scorecard mentality grows out of conflict-avoidance, rather than just laziness. I’m sure laziness is part of it, since it means you don’t have to think hard about what the candidate has done, but I suspect a certain amount is that it avoids argument among board members (and with the general membership) because it looks objective and mathematical (even though in fact these scorecards are frequently slanted to make the “right” people look good.)

I’m cautiously optimistic that the attention CtG and FDL and others are focusing on this process will help highlight the fact that it favors incumbents who are “just good enough” rather than pushing continuous progress by threatening to give support to a challenger who promises to do better.

Peterr 55:

What does GIGO stand for?

Regarding letting strategy undercut what you stand for: John Dickerson was on NPR a little while ago today, talking about the “new Al Gore” who’s not afraid to speak his mind. Dickerson kept coming back to the meme, “but if he decides to make a run for the Presidency, he’s going to have to cut back on that, to make compromises, be careful what he says,” etc. etc.

Says who? Who is it that forces us to do anything? Who takes away our free will? This sounds more like a Democratic Consultant speaking the conventional wisdom that has given the Dems their amazing ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory . . .

Given the context as explained (thanks, Pacha!) there’s really no excuse for this sorry performance. “Criteria for our scorecard? — I’ll get back to you on that!” just doesn’t cut it; it’s way outta line if he then didn’t get back to you….

OT– Tweety opens show with Bob Bennett and Plame…

Pach—- good going on the interviews!!!

Redshift:
The defense of the scorecard approach is that is standardizes an approach to endorsements creating a level playing feild for all politicians. It also spells out a way for favorably disposed pols to know what’s important to your constituency group.

I actually have no problem with scorecards. I do have a problem with an approach to making endorsements that is entirely formulaic, lacking any other context or strategic review. Politics is not reducible to a spreadhseet.

I deal with this in the business word all the time. By all means, measure what can be measured. Be sure to measure the right things. And then, after reviewing all the data, apply your judgment and considered wisdom.

The Plame case, not her in the flesh.

Redshift 53 — I call them “subterranean trolls,” others call them “stealth trolls.” Basically they say something to build up their liberal bona fides while they piss all over whatever someone else is trying to do. They hope to avoid the lable “troll” therein and the outright rejection of their ideas; it’s the latest rage in Heritage Foundation paid trolls over at the HuffPo.

GIGO: Garbage in, garbage out.

I’ve done stats and surveys stuff for a long time, and I absolutely hate what some non-math-sensitive folks do with numbers, just by being sloppy, lazy, and/or dishonest.

Pach — what a great post, I have already emailed the link to people from Maine to Texas. Thank you — it is the best argument yet to vote FOR Lamont, rather than AGAINST Lieberman.

Thank you.

Like Norml, once the desired goal is achieved, there can be no more fundraising – ergo, they will put themselves out of business.

I had thought that by the year 2000 our country would have recognized the futility and stupidity of our drug laws regarding maryjane, but No.
The fascist right wing agenda has been effective in many areas. Many young people have been programmed against legalizing/decriminalizing mj by churchy, right wing political orientation, rethug parents and other misbegotten influences.

It is sad, really – I mean about the young people being brainwashed this way. The right wing machine keeps pushing us back to darker times while they, concurrently, rob us blind.

neurophius 61 GIGO = Garbage In, Garbage Out, a computer programmer’s term for, basically, “you get what you pay for.”

Tweety, discussing Enron, mentioned Lay’s ties to bush. Interesting.

Nice interviews, Pach. This post will be forwarded to many of my friends in CT who are very active in and with the GLBT community. They will care and move on this.

I had thought that by the year 2000 our country would have recognized the futility and stupidity of our drug laws regarding maryjane, but No.

The reason being, most potsmokers I have know are nonconformists and creative thinkers. Those are not traits valued in the USofA.

I think too many organizations have gone from having zealots – who have their own set of baggage with which to contend – to, as they grow and prosper – “employees” who thrive on the fun of playing political insider. Scorecards are inherently a bad way to assess complicated scenarios like legislative compromises IMO, but more so when handled by a disengaged employee than a blood and guts zealot (but I do want to mention once again – zealots have their own problems).

FWIW

More OT

rwcole 128 below thread – right on target. There is no definable mission. “Stablizing what we destablized” is the best I have seen them come to any explanation. The very presence of a large invasion force of occupiers mostly deemed infidels and definitely deemed – again – occupiers, tends to be a destablizer all on its own. *s* Re: the Libby case though – I think we need to get you some tranquilfitzers. And it’s none of your business if he’s breathing hard – we aren’t under Clinton rules here. :b

BREAKING Capitol Hill Held Hostage by Italics. A spokesperson for the Italicized has issued a statement demanding that EPU be turned over by the radical FDL group that is harboring him. While the statement did not provide details, it is believe that EPU is wanted for fonting and actions out typeset. FDL has made a formal request that the sourcing of the statement be vetted and has all but accused the corporte media of inventing the statement. Says an anonymous FDL source: “It’s slanted.”

It’s not laziness. Any advocacy group fears being shut out. Incumbats ( misspelled it but liked it) are going to be the odds on winner in any election, let alone a primary. The only calculation that an advocacy group makes is a simple one – the incumbat is going to win, if I don’t support him/her/it, then they will cut me off, and I’ll lose my job, and I really like all the perqs of being part of the Washington professional advocacy class – it is not different than the CM and “journalists.”

neurophius @ 1:58 -

I agree. Jane’s work with the NOW/NARAL mess is example one of a successful netroots action that a savvy political reporter would be interested in, especially when it is followed by the work that Pach is starting here. To get it out, someone needs to get it to one of those reporters.

Froomkin is the kind of person I’m talking about here, and he’s open to getting tips from his readers. Sadly, he carefully confines his work to the White House beat. (Sad, in that it won’t help with this, but great because it keeps his work tightly focused and thus so blisteringly on target!)

Any CT folks, this sounds like it would be better aimed at a state or local person, rather than a national media type. Y’all know the players there – who needs to see this?

ROTFL, Mary with the breaking!

Mary at 39

Someone helpfully posted a link to the search warrant application on a previous thread. I clicked through and gave it a quick read.
The FBI was quite specific in what they were looking for (particular latters and travel documents) and why they expected to find it in the office. They had confidential witnesses who actually typed it on the computers and filed the ahrd copies. The know how the hard copy file was labelled.
This was no fishing expidition. Even with the large redactions, it is obvious that they had done everything they could short of actually removing the evidnce from the office and they solid reason to believe the evidence was stored on th eoffice and on the hard drives.
Since the narrative makes clear that one of the crimes they will be looking at is misuse of government property (the computers where used to do work for this illegal side business) the ONLY way to prove that is by proving that the side business information is on the hard drive and that the fax memory will show he used a gov’t fax to send/recieve documents for his side business.
The stuff they took is the actuall evidence of the crime.
Oh and the 45 day freeze is looking really more suspicious b/c they affidavit makes clear that they need to get the hard drives mirrored and cracked in the FBI computer lab.
SOOOO what’s on the hard drive that Bushco doesn’t want anybody to see for 45 days???

Kinda like Abu giving a (how many hours was that?) window for the shreddiing party when Plame hit the fan.

The warrant application specifically says they have concerns about tampering with the hard drives and that’s why they have to be seized.

My best friend works in computer foresics (he laughs at my total lack of tech skills) and if you know what you are doing you can fool all but the utmost expert, if you have the time to do it right.

So, I would worry about the computer equivlent of a shredding party during the cooling off period. After all, they must still be smarting that When Fitz seized the WH computers his technitions was able to recover the emails that had “not been archived in the normal way”

EPU 77 — that’s exactly what it looks like to me. That reality hit me smack in the face on the day of the Alito cloture vote when NARAL refused to pull their Chafee endorsement. It quite literally knocked the wind out of me.

Mary – It is easy for you to joke about italics. I, having seen the horrors they have wreaked in other universes, must remain ever vigilent.

I agree with your basic point, but Lieberman — whom I have come to dislike intensely — did not “endorse” Alito. I know exactly what you’re talking about; what he did was he voted for cloture. He shouldn’t have, and had the Dems held together, this could as a practical matter have killed the nomination through a filibuster. (Though they were a good 16 votes away from this, thanks only in part to the gang of 14 of which Holy Joe is a part.)

But he did not “endorse” Alito. Please be careful with facts. They matter.

Tweety with Kornblut on Hill and Bill again– she says the reaction has been most strong from the blogosphere.

Alter defends us and says that readers are annoyed when you don’t come right out and say what you mean and that we don’t trust the NYT!

Evil Parallel Universe

*anagram*

Vile Vile Anal Repulser

:-)

Dr Bong – No more doobies for you. ;-)

It’s not the doobage so much… just gotta lay offa the bong juice.

breathe deep, the gathering gloom
watchlights fade from every room

bedsitter people look back and lament
another day’s useless energy spent

oregondave,
I think the Right is actually legitimately concerned that Gore might run for President again. They couldn’t beat him last time and certainly can’t this time, if he were to throw his hat in.

As far as Dickerson, he’s just asserting the meme that any Democrat that speaks out is “crazy” or “angry”. Being meek and pedantic certainly didn’t help Gore in 2000. The real Al Gore would have kicked Bush’s ass by such a margin that Florida would have been moot.

I really hope he changes his mind…

Good work on the interview, Pach!

How to lie with statistics!
And in the real world GLBT’s keep getting mugged, shook down and run-in. What about the netrootz getting behind decrimming sex work?
Surely this is a huge part of getting the cops out of the bedrooms?
I know some authoritarian’s are doing all they can to conflate prostitution with sex slavery ( sear Sweden and rendition )and they are even getting some idiotic ( alleged) leftists on their side ( sear Stan Goff)
This is the latest re-run of the noxious Feminist- Puritan anti-adult erotica business.
Together we can do better by all those in jail for the victimless ‘ crime’ of doing sex work for a living. Se si what pach said.
Ya’ll just know that ‘ child net porn’ is one of the four horsemen of the infopocalypse doncha?
And the last refuge of the Saudi Arabian, Red Chinese net censorship scoundrel.
While I see the basic human and civil rights of all GLBT’s and the right to choose respected as a minimal plank for the netroots AMBIT claims are also important. Ambit claims are good. Ambit claims allow room for negotiation – ambit claims work and express the highest thrust of the evolutionary spirit.
Stop the war on the poor – the worlds oldest profession – and free our friends…all slaves and prisoners of the state.
Can we do some work on the failed prohibition as well? LEAP might be a good place to start with that one. What part of ‘ pursuit of happiness’ do the authoritarian NOT understand?
Why DO they hate our freedoms?

Dr. Bong @ 89 – wow, that was quick!

Cold-hearted orb that rules the night
Removes the colours from our sight,
Red is grey and yellow white
But we decide which is right
And which is an illusion.

(Moody Blues “Late Lamont”)

omg– Tweety just asked “do you think if the preznit looked more like Hugh Grant he would be more popular”

journalism, anyone? hellllooooo?

GIGO = Garbage In, Garbage Out, a computer programmer’s term for, basically, “you get what you pay for.”

Slight correction — you get what you get, and you pay what you pay; there is no correlation between results and cost.

Wow. Local news just gave about 45 seconds of video/airtime to ACLU action ‘Don’t Spy On Me.’

…and before we see too many Apocolyptic Horsemen (ie Knights in White…)

Don’t throw in the towels!
http://www.towelday.kojv.net/
” You sass that hoopy Douglas Adams? Now there’s a frood who knew where his towel was. You are invited
to join your fellow hitchhikers in mourning the loss of the late great one. Join in on towel day to show
your appreciation for the humor and insight that Douglas Adams brought to all our lives.”

Tweety just asked “do you think if the preznit looked more like Hugh Grant he would be more popular”

That quick look into Tweety’s fantasy life was a little stomach-churning…

Matthews really just needs a job at In Touch or People. Then he can heap praise on his man-crush Bush and wonder breathlessly about how often The Clenis gets laid.

punaise:

Let’s see how good you are:

And when you loose control
You’ll reap the harvest you have sown
And as the fear grows
The bad blood slows and turns to stone
And it’s too late to lose the weight
You used to need to throw around
So have a good drown
As you go down
All alone
Dragged down by the stone

Sorry EPU… couldn’t resist the slant.

:-)

crony in, crony out– mebbe Donny Evans takes over from Snow for Treasury.

Pach

At a certain point these organizations cease to represent the very constituency they set out to serve. But they still have the nice big donor lists. And staff, and a brand name.

And much to lose if big name politicos go after them. I remember sending a very irate email to the then president of Planned Parenthood at the time of the NARAL debacle about how advocacy groups for women, gays, the disabled, etc have to stop acting like “ladies” or worse battered wives; hoping that if we appease our abuser he will behave better in future.
She reminded me that no matter how much she might agree with me, she answered to a Board (where I use the word “board” read “rich ladies who lunch”) and they were unwilling to behave so rudely.
Further, I don’t know if you know this, but the single biggest source of funding for PP is Medicaide and if the Feds ever decertify them as medicaide providers 1) they are out of business overnight, and 2) millions of poor (mostly women and children) will have no health care and will be unable to replace access to reproductive care. Including poor people who don’t qualify for medicare, like undocumented people.
So, they weigh the good they do, and the wishes of the ladies who actually write the checks to keep the lights on, versus a sudden and catostrphic loss of the ability to operate and swallow thier principles.

I cannot condone it, but I understand the logic. PP is the single largest provider of health care to poor people (inlcuding primary care and inlcuding to men) in the county where I live, even more than the county hospital.

I don’t know how the screws are put to the other groups, but I suspect it is something similar.We just have to realize that once they get to a certain level of effectiveness and name recognition, they other side will find a way to ccopt them. So another, more grass roots group will spring up, until it reaches that level and it gets coopted too. It’s cyclical.
Sorry to be such a cynic.

Dr. Bong, sorry to let you down. long-term memory loss. :~)

In Re: GIGO

It’s more a statement about the importance of basic assumptions, starting points, and inputs when evaluating data. If what you start with is a steaming pile of rotting organic matter, you’re not going to be able to build a gleaming rocket ship out of it.

It might make good compost though.

If HRC is interested in “scoring” candidates, they need to make sure they’re measuring the right things.

Transparency helps a lot, too. If candidates AND officeholders know that you’re looking at more than just “show votes” on final passage, they will likely operate a bit differently.

GIGOLO! = Garbage In, Garbage Out, Look Out!

GIGLI = a bad movie

Pach, this is a wonderful post, I appreciate your excellent interview skills and admire your fine grasp of what Mr. HRC has no idea how to answer. While is is great that he did respond to your email request for an interview, it is very disappointing he didn’t feel he needed to be prepared and has not responded.

I haven’t read all the posts today, had a great day in my very small container garden and it was tomato day at my favorite nursery ( we wait for it eagerly, she has friends who bring her seeds from Italy and Switzerland, yummy heirlooms) and I wanted to plant. I have a couple of things to mention from TRex’s excellent late nite threat that are very

OT- Redshift commented on his wife’s chronic painful illness in terms of a link I had left. This is something that is a particular issue of mine and there are docs and their patients across the country who are being targeted and charged by the DEA for using “too much” narcotic medication for pain management. While there are clearly docs and patients who abuse this situation, the vast majority do not and are simply using the best medication for optimum pain relief. I am a palliative care nurse with chronic pain and am appalled at the cgovernment’s abuse of good docs and miserable patients who are labeled as drug-seeking, suffering for no good reason. This is happening not only to folks with non-malignant pain but to cancer patients as well. (/rant)

And thank you for all the great music comments. Since Gyro posted the Pearl Jam Concert on Letterman ( which I can no longer access–If anyone can help me, I will barter with you for it), I have been single minded, but will pick up the Chicks this weekend.

Re: this topic, I’d like anyone’s input on the NRDC, Natural Resource Defense Council.

Also really looking forward to the NYT Magazine article on YKos, siun is a powerhouse!!!

Thanks for tolerating my OT stuff, xo

zen

Re: GIGOLO

I said scoring candidates, not scoring with candidates.

Tucker says that nobody cares about the Plame case except the blogosphere and that Fitz is obssessed.

So there!

looseheadprop @ 2:16 pm (#80) – According to one of the stories I read, they made copies of the hard disk contents. Assuming that’s true, and that the source disks hadn’t been “shredded” to begin with, they should be able to retain the disk contents.

Did I miss something? Have the copies of the disks been returned?

punaise: s’ok. My ode to Denny Hastert. Pink Floyd’s “Dogs”

My brain sees ” HRC” and comes up with Hilary Rodham Clinton. Maybe the problem a lot of us have with _that_ HRC is because she operates the same way . . .

whoops– please to take out an “s” from the o-word in the above post.

Tucker, hah thats funny.

Shorter Tucker, (ah la Jedi Mind Tricks)
“You don’t care about the Plame case, look away, look away.”

I gotta say tho…
If Fitz is obsessed, it is a magnificient obsession.

looseheadprop at 2:35 pm –

Planned Parenthood is in a different category, and we need to cut them some slack. They are first and foremost, health care providers — they have only recently created a political division.

Frankly, PP would be better off staying out of the political side, since it puts their good works at risk. But in this environment, how can anyone not get involved?

Better for orgs like PP and HRC to stand on the sidelines of primary fights between the Joementums and the Ned Lamonts — if you can’t cross an incumbent, better to say nothing.

Why I give to the HRC.

I know the power elite won’t let transsexual sex trade workers in, so I know my money is safe with the HRC.

I know the power elite won’t let poor black kids in, so I know my money is safe with the HRC.

I know the power elite won’t let lesbian moms in, so I know my money is safe with the HRC.

I know the power elite won’t let marriage radicals in, so I know my money is safe with the HRC.

If I give my money to the HRC, I might get invited to a cocktail party with powerful people.

I will be socially legitimate. Who needs human rights?

angie @ 2:41 pm (#105) – No one cares about Tucker. Does that mean he’s obsessed and irrelevant?

When Hugh Grant got sprung he went straight on to Leno. If Shrub had come clean a long time ago he may not have survived but he might also be a lot more popular. They never learn – it’s not the crime stupid…it’s the COVER-UP!

Shrub just loves to blow his own trumpet btw.

Judge rules materials are admissible

From Paul Courson
CNN Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Two reporters, a television network, a magazine and a newspaper might have to surrender notes before the trial of Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the indicted former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney.

Libby’s lawyers had subpoenaed a broad range of notes to help prepare his defense against federal charges he lied to investigators and a grand jury about his knowledge of a CIA operative, Valerie Plame. The lawyers argue that Libby’s right to a fair trial outweighs any constitutional protect claimed by the media against handing over the materials.

On Friday, U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton agreed, writing, “The court declines to recognize a First Amendment reporters privilege.”

In orders to Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, Matthew Cooper, Time magazine and The New York Times, Walton concluded the defense’s “requests are specific, and the responsive documents are relevant.”

In addition, Time must hand over draft versions of an article Walton says would be helpful for Libby’s defense.

Walton said he had found alterations between drafts Cooper had written for his 2005 article, “What I told the grand jury.” Such information, Walton said, would allow Libby’s lawyers to challenge Cooper’s likely testimony.”…………

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITI…..reporters/

oregondave says,

“John Dickerson was on NPR a little while ago today, talking about the ‘new Al Gore” who’s not afraid to speak his mind. Dickerson kept coming back to the meme, “but if he decides to make a run for the Presidency, he’s going to have to cut back on that, to make compromises, be careful what he says,” etc.”

Oh please please please, that is exactly what we do NOT want–I ONLY want the new & improved Al–not the old Al who already proved he could not win (by enough anyway)!! Oh that’s infuriating.

Yeah, Cujo359– he is obsessed with wingnuttia! Remember he switched stools with Novakula way back last year when he and his show was canceled. He was wearing his shirt sans bowtie today, though… maybe he cares about his approaching total irrelevance.

Al in full on passionate mode may be swiftboated, but as long as he doesn’t cut back, I’m convinced he’d win. Passionate, statesmanlike, smart, honest.

There, no more bold, maybe.

Let’s remember to close those tage, folks!

Redshift 53
“Is there a term for trolls who insist that you have to focus on their issue exclusively, and that no one should try to deal with anything else until the “most important thing” is taken care of?”

Self-referen-trolls?

That was supposed to be until way back last year…

Slow down and preview…

Cujo @ 106,
No they haven’t been “returned” they have been turned over the the Solicitor General. Though technically a member of DOJ, the SG it the WH’s lawyer and sometimes argues postions in court that are contrary to the DOJ position. I think that happened at least once during the Reagen admin.

I know of zero authority (though I have not looed it up) that allws the SG to go near the fruits of a search warrant. Jurisdiction over the materials in a return of warrant belongs to the judge who issed the warrant, not the President.

Since the matrial in the warrant ws the subject of a previous GJ subpeona, I suspect it is covered by Rule 6 of theFederal Rules of Criminal Procedure and pursuant to Rule 6e disclosing that material would be a felony. I think dislcosing to the SG may get you there.

Further, by turning it over the the SG, if I were a defense lawyer for the Jefferson, I would arrgo that the mirror dics were now inadmissable because the chain of custody was broken (not sure on this cause maybe the SG will do a fabulous job of maintaining the chain, but since I think this is going to be a virgin area of law, who knows??)

By ordering the FBI to turn over the warant return materials to the SG, Bushhas shit all over the judical branch and the Grand Jury.

He crossed so many lines with this one act, I can’t count them all. To use a word Fitz repopularized, this is “breathtaking”

Dr. Bong – backatcha:

When the sun beats down and I lie on the bench,
I can always hear them talk.
Me, I’m just a lawnmower – you can tell me by the way I walk.

Cujo359 at 106:

I believe looseheadprops’ point was who the “they” is that has possession of the hard drives. The same people who *might* not want the contents preserved.

I was going to say ‘I don’t care about Tucker.’ Then it occurred to me ‘hypothetically’. If he had an abrupt attack of integrity and started using his media platform to say something of substance I would care.

Then I realized that I care about Tucker in that he is culpable precisely because he mis-uses the platform that he has by providence arrived upon.

Splitting hairs I guess, but I dislike assuming an ‘I don’t care’ attitude for any reason, and always try to bring introspection to bear on anything that evokes that ‘I don’t care’ sentiment.

“I don’t care, I don’t care, many things are buried there.”

Pardon my prosaic and public introspection.

Just read my comment at 122. Even for me those are some whopping typos!! I am laughing pretty hard now (hanging head would be appropriate, but hell, it’s Friday!)

zennurse, re: NRDC

I think I have given them money but I’m not sure–I give small donations to so many groups. I can’t vouch for them, but one criterion I try to use is the extent to which the group is actively battling Bush’s agenda. This tends to work on a whole range of issues. Wish I knew more about the specifics of NRDC’s programs and positions.

ck 111 — I have to disagree, and I think PP would too. They realized (too late in the game) that they are getting killed and playing defense in places like South Dakota because they are leaving elections to the politicians and worrying about cleaning up the mess later on.

They can’t stay out of political races and they know it. The trouble is they then start playing the incumbency/cocktail weenie game. Is there any reason for Planned Parenthood to tell their memberships to thank Lieberman for his Alito vote? Is there anything more damaging to choice these days than putting people like Alito on the bench who will be a wrecking ball for the next 30 years? And yet that’s exactly what PP did.

They can’t stay on the bench and do what they do. Each day their ability to provide health care services is savaged by a well financed right-wing anti-abortion machine. If they don’t start fighting the battle on the the playing field it is currrently being fought on, they — and we — lose.

EPU – Italics are like clouds, you need to look at them from both sides. I can understand your concerns, though, bc they all seem to have a right tilt. Don’t let them make you comatose with fear – be bold.

lhp – I’ll try to find that link – maybe it’s on Smoking Gun? It seems to me that there is no real grounds on the separation issue and I really wonder who in the heck picked the Sol. Gen to hold the info? Really – why not have the Court that issued the warrant hold the info under seal? But the Pres can’t directly order the Court to do anything – while he can order around the FBI and DOJ.

Very very very weird and I have to question, too, wth is going on with that. My convoluted reasoning abstracts it as a way for Bush and backers to try to have an “unrelated case” on which to look like they are hammering out a good working agreement on separation of powers that ends up limiting Exec from accessing COngressional offices.

All prior to any Repub. offices being accessed. So access to some of the info FBI or the DOJ groups might need is cut off, all without the AG or President having to more directly shut things down.

I just don’t see the separation issue unless they are trying to redo what failed in Johnson – make some of the cases based on actual actions taken on the floor as conspiratorial in nature. That’s a loser, but on all the bribery and fraud types of charges that we are seeing I think the searches seem on their face pretty clean. ?????

I also wonder a bit about the statements issued on Hastert. First comes a general DOJ – Hastert not under investigation. THEN a specific response – but by McNulty, not Gonzales. Not issued under Gonzales name. McNulty on the Hastert statement. Clements on the doc holding – why is Gonzales staying so low profile?

cbl – if you see this: I hope you are right on Hayden/Negroponte and Rumsfeld, but I don’t beleive it. Negroponte knows that Rumsfeld and Cheney are the actual power centers and they all have backgrounds. IMO the Hayden/Negroponte – Rumsfeld dispute looks a lot like something done in kindgergarten with fingerpaints. OTOH, I’m not a Picasso fan, so I can just go with “I know what I like” and as uninformed as that is – it leaves me really not liking this at all.

Hayden is, even more specifically and certifiably than anyone else in the Adminstration, a criminal. He has beau coup ooodles of criminal FISA violations under his stars, spanning YEARS and including misrepresentations under oath to COngress. He’s now got that coupled with a Salemesque approach to not only people in the CIA, but also members of Congress and Journalists, re: leaks.

My guess is he and Rumsfeld are much tighter than you would guess, in outlook if nothing else, and he took Rumsfeld’s wateboarding and ran with it to create his own version of a ducking stool for this “leaks” investigation.

And still no one asks: How do you classify information about illegal activity?

*s*

But if you’re right and there’s a Rumsfeld Hayden cage match – never bet against Rumsfeld.

I think this case, like the Sierra Club’s endorsement of Lincoln Chaffee and NOW endorsing Lieberman, is just more evidence of the insiderism that has weakened the Democratic Party–and thus liberal causes–for so long. JoMo doesn’t come right out and say gays should be put in camps, so he’s….acceptable…dont’ want to muddy the waters and rock the boat and scare off moderate NASCAR dads and soccer moms and waitress single mothers and oh for Christ’s sake bob shrummm donna brazile paul begala: your day is passed, go away.

Cujo – Bolds are usually our friend; unlike the evil, hated, Italics, who are always bad. Unless they are Times New Romansr – who are total assholes, orTimes News Romans who are total evil, assholes.

Enough, off to pick up a package.

neuro 72 – Interesting that Tweety actually connected Ken Lay to the presnit. NPR really soft-peddled it this morning. One tiny blurb said that Lay was connected to the Bush’s. They didn’t say “President Bush”, just “the Bush’s”, like they might have meant – the guys that make Bush’s baked beans or maybe just the talking dog. That was that damn liberal news outfit -NPR.

Hugh Grant? Mmmmm, seems like that would fix everything – if only Shrub looked like Hugh Grant. What about Lou Grant, instead?

Tucker Carlson is a right wing shill/media whore. Plame leak/Iraq lies/WHIG is a major deal that could/should unravel the entire administration. And I think they are afraid it will.

op99 120

How about ConTroll freaks?

looseheadprop @ 2:58 pm (#122) – The SG business sounds a bit irregular to me. There are probably about a dozen ways they could have made them inaccesible now without removing them from DoJ custody, not the least of which is locking them in a safe and giving the keys/combo to someone else for safekeeping who isn’t normally granted access to the building.

In fact, if you’re worried about separation of powers issues, wouldn’t you rather leave the evidence in the hands of civil servants?

Anyhow, unless BushCo decides to wipe the things, whatever’s on them ought to be safe. Hopefully, the SG will keep a good log of where they are, where they got them, etc. Seems unlikely they’d be used to doing that, though, doesn’t it?

We are no longer at war with Italica. We are now at war with EuroBold.

David Broder to Matthews: I don’t know about the Hugh Grant thing, but wouldn’t he be SMASHING in a lemon yellow pantsuit?

neurophius 133, you’re in the lead so far.

ducking = dunking

Troll-ops

(sorry op99 – just a coinky-dink!)

punaise @ 3:07 pm (#135) – What do you mean “now”? We’ve always been at war with EuroBold.

Jane @127

You’re right – PP does have to get in the game, but they’ve got to play it differently than the Human Rights Campaign or NARAL or NOW. PP has to play the politics game while the also continue to provide services. NARAL, NOW, and others don’t do that. That’s not meant as a slam, but as an observation.

Let me also observe that the Catholic Hospitals so beloved by Lamont’s distinguished opponent are caught in the same dilemma as PP.

When so much of the health care funding comes via the government, either directly or indirectly, health care providers are obligated to be involved in politics and lobbying.

Mary, that sounds fabulous! A lemon yellow pantsuit on the dumb guy you’d rather have a beer with than have him be POTUS. Lemon yellow pantsuits all around!

EPU, I think you should stop picking on Italics. They are one of our NATO allies and besides, they make great food.

New ball of yarn upstairs! Jennifer is baaack!

Cujo359 (140)
sorry, I never got the memo

Mary @ 3:07 pm (#136) – If he did a better job with his hair, maybe …

p.s. yoo-hoo, darkblack! Maybe you could help us with Mary’s suggestion @ 136?????

We have always been at war with EuroBold.

“Hugh Grant”? That tears it. Tweety is burning with lust for Bush. So sad. When grown men can’t deal with their feelings? Nothing good will come of it.

Shorter Matthews: Oh, George. I wish I could quit you.

who’s bold enough to wear a lemon yellow pantsuit to YKos?

Plano Tex 132:

Interesting, yes, as I said, but I think I spoke too soon. It was more of a passing comment; it should have been a full story. I think the MSM has really fallen down on this point. I think all Democratic leaders–Pelosi, whoever–should take every opportunity to mention the multiple felony count conviction of Kenny Boy Lay, a longtime crony of and major fundraiser for Presnit George W. Bush.

Fantastic piece!

“This self-defeating, idiotic, scorecard-driven myopia…” Too bad that’s the establishment Dem’s most recognizable, overall theme.

Tucker and Novak have never really recuperated from the Jon Stewart SMACKDOWN which they deserved so richly (Gawd, I’ll never forget Tucker whining to Jon, “Be Funny!”). He just doesn’t get it.

If someone does wear that pantsuit to YKos, it will underline their devotion.

Yellow pantsuits for all includes the First Lady, right?

http://aileen.serverpro4.com/images/i68.jpg

Gun optional.

Mary, heh heh

Peterr 141 — yes you’re right, they do have to continue to offer services at the same time. They are in a different position.

But I would argue infected with the same disease. I was contacted by a PP person who had been battling to get them to back a pro-choice candidate in the Penn. Senate race before Casey was shoehorned in. They refused, and now 58% of the state that is pro-choice has no candidate in the race. At the time the PP people were focused on a big celebrity fundraiser in Boston; they all arrived in limos, had to give tickets away for lack of interest and lost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I get these stories all the time from people at PP and NARAL who wanted to work there because they believed in the cause but left in frustration. If these are somehow smart policy moves in the interest of keeping clinic doors open, or defending the people on the front lines in South Dakota I just don’t see it.

I burned my HRC membership card back in 1998 when they endorsed D’Amato over Schumer. D’Amato originally ran for Senate against Liz Holtzman and REPEATEDLY lesbian-baited her.

HRC is just bad on queer rights, they’re bad on civil rights for people of color, they’re bad on reproductive rights. If you’re white, very corporate, and have lots of $$$$, you’re cool for HRC. If you don’t fit into each category, well….

GREAT interview. Thanks for showing us HRC is still incompetent per usual.

“Is there a term for trolls who insist that you have to focus on their issue exclusively, and that no one should try to deal with anything else until the ‘most important thing’ is taken care of?”

I was just going to go with monomaniacs.

Pach:

I’m sure you noticed it, but in case you didn’t, you and the HRC drone were talking across each other about Strip Search Sammy Alito. You were talking about the cloture vote, and the HRC drone seems to be talking about the confirmation vote.

I suspect that if the HRC scored the Alito vote, they scored the confirmation vote itself (and didn’t Joe-mentum vote correctly on the confirmation vote?) rather than the really critical vote, which was the cloture vote.

If the drone gets back to you, make sure that he has some powerpoint in front of him that shows him that it was the cloture vote that was crucial, not the actual confirmation vote. If they want to be really even-handed, perhaps they can score both votes. But in my personal opinion, the confirmation vote was meaningless in this case, it was the cloture vote that was crucial.

Angie, quoting the Declaration of Independence (and noting that the revolution ought to start now):

You’d be amazed (and dismayed) at how many college students disagree when they are read the Declaration of Independence. A bunch of sheeple, they are. Find the goats amongst the sheeple and nuture them, my colleagues.

BC

The Solicitor General is where GOP Presidents go to get their dirty work done — Robert Bork was Nixon’s SG who fired the first Watergate Prosecutor at Dick’s behest….

We gots us a spammer at 157…

Jane @154

Yep, that’s a real social disease we’re talking about here, and it infect both the groups doing strictly politics and also those like PP who do both politics and direct services.

I guess I’d like to think that the poor people walking in the doors of PP are more of a reminder to the political folks there of “why we’re doing this.” Of course, if the political folks at PP don’t ever get down to the clinic every once and a while, then they end up in their limos eating the cocktail weenies.

Alone.

Arrrrrgggghhh!

Thanks for pushing this, Jane.

It gets better…HRC endorsed Mary Bono over a challenger who actually supports marriage equality…

Such fools. D’Amato. the Margaret Cho fiasco at the Democratic National Convention. This crap.

Does anyone expect better from the politically inept HRC? Lest we forget, they endorsed D’Amato over Schumer. Let’s how this works out as well.

Pach, excellent post and interview. Just shows how classic progressive interest groups have become another cog in the big money wheel that drives incumbency.

Its time to support independent organizations and more importantly candidates directly.

The only quip I have is the blogosphere supporting Lamont so much that it is draining the oxygen from other real progressives that we need to make real change happen. Lamont replacing Joementum is good but so is replacing Biden, Schumer, DiFi and all those guys that voted for cloture on Alito or for Hayden. Lamont has the money already but he needs ground troops. However, a Laesch or Winograd need money. I think FDL and other liberal blogs need to help galavanize small contributions to those primary races where a little money goes a long way and a real progressive could be the Dem candidate. Jon Tester in Montana is a good example where a real organic farmer with the financial support of small contributors in the netroots has recently started to do better than Morrison the DLC candidate.

All I am saying is let’s not be so focused on Lamont to the exclusion of others. I agree that Lamont is the tip of the spear but let’s not forget the rest of the spear.

Well, I’m way late with the exclamations, but ROY GBIV.

HRC has historically not weighted the questions, much less considered anything but final votes on bills even though the real issue was in an amendment and the final vote had virtually no meaning. If they’ve changed that, it’s actually a step in the right direction for them.

Their so-called voters’ guides are well-known as some of the most misleading in the business — and, strangely, not even in a way that serves them well.

They endorse incumbents because, in this screwed up system, it’s almost impossible for a non-incumbent running against an incumbent to win and HRC doesn’t want to be stuck for the duration of that term and all of the next one with an incumbent with his/her nose out of joint. It’s despicable but the fault lies more in the system, so it’s hard to fault them for that part of it.

But the way they do this also ignores the power of the bully pulpit and ignores the other ways that candidates help or hurt our cause — things that can be even more powerful than their votes in many years. It’s shortsighted and unnecessary as these things, while more subjective, can be made quantifiable and are really no more subjective than weighting.

With HRC, however, I’d have to wonder if they have the judgement skills to do that well. Too many of them over the years have fallen into the trap of confusing access and politeness with support and overly applied wishful thinking instead of steely, sound, reality-based assessment.

There have been some marvelous exceptions on their staff over the years. This fellow, sadly, does not seem to be one of them and more like their usual tired, behind the curve norm.

Thanks for the interview!

Hi firedoglake,

Found your blog via Lamontblog, who I support and enthusiastically blogroll on my blog.

I also support Ned Lamont and I want to see Joementum returned to where from whence he came. Bush’s favorite Democrat must go.

I had no idea Joementum was antigay. I appreciate you bringing his views to my attention. I will be blogging about this in days to come. My readers MUST know the depth of Lieberman’s hypocrisy.

I also admit not knowing the HRC support Lieberman. This is outrageous and totally unacceptable. To think all the years I’ve sent them money and I even have an HRC sticker on my car.

My donations to the HRC end immediately and I have already removed the their sticker (rubbing alcohol works splendidly.)

I will be blogrolling firedoglake. I am also an out gay male, partnered 14 years. I am also a Democratic activist. I appreciate the work you do.

Regards,

Christopher di Spirito
From the Left, publisher

Christopher,

Welcome! Pach did a nice job on this story. That was a pretty amazing find re: HRC- seems a common incumbency slant.

I just happened to see your comment. You might want to say hello at the latest thread. For whatever reason, discussion at FDL moves to more recent threads, tho authors do continue to read comments. Although discussion on a particular thread is mostly on-topic, off-topic comments are fine- (that is especially true of late-nite threads)

Christopher:

That’s great – we’re glad to have you around. I’m hoping the locals in Connecticut really wake up to this, and get the word out.

Best to you!

Great reporting. I give $25 to Lamont every other month. Lieberman is a neocon fascist.

A few words in defense of Mr. Mings and the HRC:

Think about it — HRC is a HUGE organization with a HUGE PAC and significant influence in DC. Unlike smaller, more nimble organizations, it needs ground rules/parameters, particularly when it comes to giving to candidates. Large PACs like HRC are often focused on using the PACs as part of their shorter-term legislative strategies. If HRC supports Lamont and Lieberman ends up winning, what kind of reception do you think HRC’s lobbyists would get the next time they asked for Lieberman’s support on an issue? Sad but true, that is how things operate. Plus, part of HRC’s mission is to demonstrate and encourage broad support for its issue. If that means giving to the occasional Republican or Lieberman who generally support their legislative goals, then so be it.

Having said that, the organization has stepped out occasionally (see the early support for Obama in 2004 when the establishment was not yet behind him).

Medan:

What good is their access if it produces no results?

Who is their constituency: GLBT people and their families, or incumbents?

I wrote about about the uses and misuses of scorecards in the comments. But this was a stupid, selfish-to-insiders decision.

Pachacutec:

You may be right on this particular decision. I know I’d love to see Lamont rather than Lieberman. I guess my only point here is that probability/likelihood of success is a legitimate factor for political giving. If I’m a single-issue PAC and I’ve got an incumbent who is not perfect but better than average on my issue, it is going to take a lot to have me give to that incumbent’s primary challenger. This is particularly the case when the incumbent in question is a member of the party that supports my issue. So I think it’s definitely fair to question and criticize HRC’s decision here, but I don’t believe the decision on this issue should be viewed as a “no-brainer” on one side or the other.

Madan:

If you’re promoting long term change, then sticking with an incumbent because you confuse access with influence, in a safe state when there’s a challaneger better on your issues, is a no brainer.

Make the candidates compete for your endoresement. The HRC has taken a pro-incumbent position that gives away its leverage to effect change: there is not incentive for candidtaes to compete for their endorsement.

Sorry; that’s a no brainer.

What does “if !supportEmptyParas” mean?

Without reading the previous 175 posts, has anyone suggested such groups reveal the model, formulas, etc they use in tabulating thier score card? It seems to me that anyone with a good grasp of mathematics, graduate level-wise, could probably deduce if the method people are using to score candidates is a wise one numberswise or not.

MYOB’
.

From Wiki…

Officially, the HRC represents the transgender community. However, it has previously been the target of protests due to its refusal to demand the inclusion of the transgendered in the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) bill. These objections changed in 2004 when the organization announced support for an ENDA bill that was inclusive of gender identity, however sparking charges of “trans-jacking” from the far right.

Sometimes referred to as “Headed by Rich Caucasians” or the “Human Rights Champagne Fund”, the HRC has often been the target of critics who claim that the HRC and HRCF do not produce any significant policy advocacy, and only serve the interests of a select minority of wealthy, white gay men. In the same vein, it is heavily criticized for its national, top-down structure instead of a local, grassroots focus.

The HRC is considered by some to be too cozy with the Democratic Party establishment. For example, during the 2004 elections, the bulk of the organization’s time and funding was focused on the unsuccessful effort to elect John Kerry (”George W. Bush, You’re Fired!” became the group’s heavily merchandized signature line). As a result resources were not spent to defeat state ballot initiatives that sought to ban same-sex marriage — all 11 of which passed overwhelmingly on November 2, 2004. Given that Kerry was a supporter of such state ballot initiatives [2], many questioned why he had received a “free ride” from HRC, and why more effort wasn’t made to defeat the marriage initiatives..

It is now clear that, with its change of heart with the ENDA bill, the HRC is now embracing the LGBT community’s diversity while still keeping the community’s public image mainstream.

HRC is too busy bitching and moaning about Howard Dean.

FYI HRC has endorsed Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island. I am significantly reducing my monthly contribution to HRC, as soon as I can get through to a live person.

OK, a couple of quick things. Please note that I don\’t work for HRC or HRCF, and I\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\’m not going to claim they aren\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\’t making mistakes. I\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\’ve made periodic contributions to HRC, but they\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\’re not my number one group, perhaps because I happen to be straight and it\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\’s a whose-ox-is-getting-gored thing.

But there are a lot of commenters who are frustrated with special/public interest groups. I\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\’d like to try to defend some of them in general, if not HRC in specific.

First, on the scorecard itself. Writing a scorecard in the current Congress is one of the hardest things to do. Bills are not brought to the floor, and decent amendments are killed in committee. The rules do not allow the minority to challenge that. So, as a public interest lobbyist who sits on a few boards, I\’m open to suggestion as to better votes that will delineate those who truly agree with us from those who don\’t, but i haven\’t found many.

However , using confirmation instead of cloture is unconscionable on the part of HRC. It is precisely because of issues like this that most groups actually seek out the procedural votes where we\’re being sold down the river, rather than final vote, which is meaningless most of the time. If you are going to include Alito on your scorecard, that\’s just terrible.

Now, the fact is that the wrong hack called you back. Im a hack, too. I\’m a political hack, and if I worked there, i would be able to explain every vote on our sheet, why we chose that one, and why we rejected another. But this hack was obviously some drone who knew how to write a press release, so got hired for media work. Media hacks are the bane of existence of political hacks. They tend not to know anything. For all this moron knew, they *did* use the cloture vote.

I think there is a good argument that, in a situation like the current one, in which the majority has frozen out the Democrats, it makes little sense to even have a voting record at all. Perhaps we should just give all of the buttheads on Capital Hill an F. But it would seem a bizarre decision, to stop doing a voting record after so many years, so I do understand the impetus.

And one of the problems is the Catch-22 that interest groups are in regarding elections. Because I\’m must more familiar with environmental legislation that LGBT issues, I\’ll use that to make a point that applies to both.

Let\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\’s use the example of Lincoln Chafee for the environmental lobbyist. Lincoln Chafee is not my idea of a progressive Senator. But, to the extent we are going to have Republicans in office, I would prefer to have Lincoln Chafee, who is good on greenhouse gas emissions, CAFE standards, and a host of other things, than, say, Texas\’\’Smoky\’ Joe Barton. So, does the hypothetical group support Chafee, even though it knows that, a few times during his term, he\’s going to sell them down the river? Or do they support the better Democratic opponent? Even if Chafee loses, so you don\’t have to worry about his vote anymore, you\’ve convinced every other Republican that there is no good reason to listen to you ever again, since, even if they carry water for you, you\’ll screw them over in the end.

Now, I agree that, in this particular case, HRC is being shortsighted, since the seat is safely Democratic and it\’s not like Lieberman ever carries water for them, anyway. But it\’s not so simple.

(And, as an aside, it is the inability to get anything done as long as the GOP has a hammerlock on power that makes the HRCF\’s 2004 decision to work more than anything else on Kerry-Bush seem reasonable. Look, I\’m no John Kerry fan, but it does seem obvious to me that, under a President Kerry, there would have been no Alito cloture to screw us over on.)

And, believe it or not, the staffers that many commenters cavalierly trash (and this isn\’t me, I don\’t work for HRC, and I\’m not a public person to begin with) frequently took significant cuts in pay from the \’real\’ world to do work they care about. For them, this isn\’t about getting invited to snooty parties. They don\’t get invited to those parties, and can\’t afford to go if they do. They are doing their best to try to win in an environment stacked against them. I know it doesn\’t look like we care. After all, all we do is put in routine 60 hour weeks for substandard pay so that we can work for the things we believe in.

I am NOT complaining about that. I am the luckiest man alive. I have a job I love, working on issues about which I care deeply. If it means that I get paid half of what i got when I worked in the private sector, hell, I make half of what I used to make, but wake up every morning excited to be doing my job, to be serving the interests of my contributors to the best of my ability, and to be trying to convince those contributors to be more radical whenever I can! I\’m thrilled with what I do, and when I get contacted by people who want me to be more radical, I love it. I always try to help them take an action that my board won\’t let me take, and I always ask them to help me push my board. As I say, this is the greatest job on earth.

But it\’s a hard job, and it takes a ton of experience to do well. And it takes insane dedication. And it is NEVER done with hopes of glory. The most effective anti-nuclear arms advocate in DC is someone you\’ll never know or meet. That doesn\’t make him unhappy. He just wants to rack up some wins and hold down the losses. And I don\’t think it even marginally rational to say that he\’s ineffective because we still have nuclear weapons.

in short, while I can believe that HRC is poorly run, and while I am not unsympathetic to the frustration of people who feel that HRC is not pushing hard enough, please don\’t act like you think all they have to do is march into Tom Coburn\’s office, say, \’Senator, you\’re a bigot and a danger to freedom\’ (which he unquestioningly is) and emerge with an agreement from him that he\’s been wrong. HRC has done a great deal to get LGBT issues on the freaking table in an environment in which most, who have to answer to many of the 40% of Americans who claim to have attended Church this week or the 34% who think that the Bible is the literal, word for word, word of God.

There are a lot of bastards out there. And while I, like you, want to take aim at all of them as often as possible, I don\’t want to confuse those who I think could do better for those who don\’t care. And I certainly don\’t want to start by shooting my allies.

PS – The HRC didn\’t build that monstrosity on 17th. It belonged to B\’nai Brith, who built the monstrosity. But to the extent that the point of the poster who spoke of it was that they raised and spent the money to buy it, I have no idea what it costs compared to DC office space rental, but it may have been worth it. Or not. I\’d certainly want to actually see a budget before commenting on it, though.

=====I tried to fix this I really did. But when I tried to turn off the tags ///// got inserted. I went back and deleted all of them, but 20% still show up and I can’t fix. I will bill you ;) ;) ~MOderator

DEAR MODERATOR:

Argh. I screwed up a tag and left bold on instead of just for a phrase, and I misspelled a couple of words. Can I fix it? Can you? I don’t mean to scream. I’m just a moron.

Thanks!

No One should be surprised by the HRC’s actions. After all, these are the same people who endorsed Alphonse D’Amato over Chuck Schumer in the 1998 New York Senate race. They just can’t stop sucking up to those in power…what a failed and bankrupt strategy!

Lieberman never said “homosexuality is wrong.” Not to the New Haven Advocate; not, as best as can be determined, to anybody, ever. Oppose him all you like; but don’t go practicing the Big Lie theory of politics and expect that none of the bright-eyed, bushy-tailed lefties will catch on. Some of us Jews have been around the block once or twice; fool us once, shame on you…