Wednesday's Web

The Day's Top Political News

Franken takes Dems to 60 in Senate
By Aaron Blake
Posted: 06/30/09 08:01 PM [ET]
Former “Saturday Night Live” star Al Franken will become the 60th Democratic vote in the Senate next week after former Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) conceded Minnesota’s Senate race Tuesday.

Coleman’s concession came hours after the state Supreme Court struck down his challenge and ruled that Franken should be seated. It brought an end to an eight-month legal battle over one of the tightest and most expensive Senate races in history. The parties spent over $50 million trying to win the seat.

Franken’s status as the 60th vote gives his party the ability to override GOP filibusters without needing a Republican senator to cross over.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/and-then-there-were-60-2009-06-30.html

Rep. Boyd Faces Protests on Energy Vote
Reporter: Matt de Nesnera
Hundreds gathered outside of Gulf Coast Community College to show their disapproval of Congressman Allen Boyd's vote last week on the American Clean Energy and Security Act.

Protesters voiced their opinions. P.T. Moore says, "This is just going to bust America. This is bad, it's just bad politics." Irene Bowden says, "He's no more a Blue Dog Democrat than I'm an astronaut!"

The current energy bill will curb pollution through a "cap-and-trade" process. It would reduce the amount of harmful gases released into the atmosphere by 17% by 2020, and 83% by 2050. Tuesday's conference at Gulf Coast Community College was billed as a chance to encourage small business development in north Florida. Congressman Boyd spoke to the crowd, touching on the current recession, and saying high energy prices were a major contributing factor.
http://www.wjhg.com/home/headlines/49558847.html

RASMUSSEN: 56% Don’t Want To Pay More To Fight Global Warming

Fifty-six percent (56%) of Americans say they are not willing to pay more in taxes and utility costs to generate cleaner energy and fight global warming.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, taken since the climate change bill was passed on Friday, finds that 21% of Americans are willing to pay $100 more per year for cleaner energy and to counter global warming. Only 14% are willing to pay more than that amount.

Fifty-two percent (52%) of all adults say it is more important to keep the cost of energy as low as possible than it is to develop clean, environmentally friendly sources of energy. But 41% disagree and say developing cleaner, greener energy sources is the priority.

Sixty-three percent (63%) rate creating jobs as more important than taking steps to stop global warming. For 22%, stopping global warming is more important. .
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/56_don_t_want_to_pay_more_to_fight_global_warming

OPINION

Disillusioned

There was a time where I truly wanted Barack Obama to succeed, it’s hard to believe that was only six months ago. See, I was just the sort of idealistic American that Barack’s campaign preyed upon: someone who knew Washington was broken and tired of the partisanship, lies and hypocrisy that caused it. So while I knew I disagreed with Mr. Obama politically, I thought he would usher in a new attitude in Washington whose benefit would be greater than anything negative he could do in policy. Boy my face is so red!

 

Instead of being the reformer I so desperately wanted, Obama has proven to be (say it with me) more of the same. To Obama, transparency isn’t giving the American people a better of idea of how their government is working – it is prime time infomercials and a lap dog press. To Obama, reaching across the isle isn’t working with Republicans to create legislation reflecting the wishes of America as a whole – it is allowing partisan bomb throwers like Nancy Pelosi write legislation and humiliating Republicans when they don’t sign off. To Obama, justice isn’t about impartiality, or doing what is right – it is sullying the reputation of an AmeriCorp Inspector while letting Black Panther thugs walk free.

When trying to force legislation down the throats of the American people, Obama frequently talks about a mandate given to him by the American people. Why, then, does he feel no need to actually respect their wishes? Americans don’t want government intrusion into their lives, so Obama gives the government more power. American’s don’t want to fight global warming at the cost of higher taxes or damage to businesses, so Obama gives us Cap and Trade. American’s don’t trust the government to spend money effectively and without waste, so Obama gives us a gigantic stimulus. Why, Mr. President, why?

The President’s most recent example of gross incompetence may be his most appalling. In condemning the Honduras coup, Obama is defending a man whose chief allies are Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro; a man whose actions have been so reckless that his own party is questioning his mental stability. While I understand that “military coup” rarely seems like a good thing for a country, Obama is not in a position to allow buzz words to impact his judgment. The facts are that the former President tried to shred his countries constitution, tried to remove all opposition to his offensive and was condemned by his supreme court, congress and military. This is the man Obama is protecting? More baffling still is the fact that the new President, Roberto Micheletti, is a bigger friend to American interest than Manuel Zelaya, his predecessor! What is Obama’s goal? Where is he coming from?

Obama’s reckless actions do have one positive consequence: they are so large that even the most apathetic are starting to take notice. Over the course of the past two weeks I have had multiple proud Obama voters come to me asking “what is he doing?” While in the 60’s charisma and style alone could secure you fond standing with the American people, in the age of the internet it’s no longer good enough. Just as state secrets are harder to hide, so is state incompetence. Barack Obama has ensured that the 2012 election will be a referendum on his policies, and that is a battle all conservatives should welcome.

You will not fool me again, Mr. Obama.  

- Tho

The Days Top Political Blogs

1. Obama sides with Chavez

http://pundits.thehill.com/2009/06/30/siding-with-chavez/#more-6605

I wonder if President Obama feels comfortable siding with Hugo Chavez.

Chavez, who knows something about coups, is leading the opposition to the Honduran Coup, because his good buddy, Manuel Zelaya, was ousted by the military and replaced by somebody from his own political party.

Zelaya’s crime was to listen too closely to Mr. Chavez and try to run Honduras like Chavez has run Venezuela, which is to say, into the ground.

Zelaya, like Chavez, is a crackpot. He ran as a right-of-center candidate, but then had a change of heart in the middle of his term, became a left-wing darling of the Castro crowd, and then tried to change the Honduran Constitution so that he could keep taking Honduras to the left.

The military, with the full support of the Honduran Congress, said enough is enough, and exported Mr. Zelaya to a different country.

America doesn’t have the best of reputations when it comes to coups and South America, and that history puts the Obama administration in a tough spot.

They have to condemn the coup, because they don’t want the people of Central and South America thinking that the U.S. had anything to do with it.

On the other hand, it must make Mr. Obama somewhat uncomfortable to be seen allied with Mr. Chavez, the two-bit banana republic dictator.

Chavez — and his comrade in arms Daniel Ortega (as well as his other crackpot friend, Mr. Morales of Bolivia) — are all inspired by the leadership of Fidel Castro. They all want to follow his example of opposing the United States, suppressing political dissent, expropriating private property and generally imposing Soviet-style government on their people.

Zelaya thought that Chavez and his coven had it about right, and he too wanted to join the dictators’ club.

The Honduran military, which enjoys close cooperation with the American military, wasn’t going to let that happen. Neither was the Honduran Congress nor the political party that Mr. Zelaya still belongs to and once led.

We should keep quiet on this one, and support the people of Honduras. They were tired of Mr. Zelaya’s erratic behavior and they weren’t going to support his power-grab.

Military coups are never a good thing, but it was time for Mr. Zelaya to go. Let’s not give aid and comfort to that scourge of democracy, Mr. Chavez. Let the Hondurans handle it, and let’s hope that America stays out of it.

Visit www.thefeeherytheory.com.

Note: I have never been a big fan of the "Manchurian Candidate" theory frequently floated about Obama among the far right underground of America, but Obama's actions in Central America throughout his Presidency seem to step for step with the Communist Party.

2. The Latest on "New Journalism"

http://pundits.thehill.com/2009/06/30/the-latest-on-the-new-journalism/#more-6589

Coverage of the short-lived but very dramatic Iranian revolution points up the pluses and minuses of what is increasingly referred to as “the new journalism.” Coverage of breaking news on the spot by amateurs using phone cameras and Twittering on the Internet permits immediacy and verisimilitude by portraying events as they happen. Because it is not curated, observers have no way to assess the truthfulness of what they see.

Major news venues on the Web transmitted unverified citizens’ videos from Tehran. Traditional journalists used and commented on them, noting they could not evaluate their sources. They had no choice, as most professional journalists on the scene were barred or removed. Eyewitnesses filled the vacuum in the 24/7 maw of cable television. “Journalism Rules are Bent,” The New York Times admitted. The networks could not vouch for the credibility of the “news” they transmitted, try though they did. Of 5,200 submissions, CNN used 180 of them, applying its filtering and verification techniques to the avalanche of amateur material it received. A United Kingdom journalist from The Guardian, on the other hand, was quoted as saying he wouldn’t touch Twitter — “it’s all garbage.”

The fact is that some of this reportage may be garbage, and some may be the best reporting possible. Devising a system that excludes the former while perfecting and encouraging the latter is the challenge of the new journalism. That process must move on; it is the future.

Visit www.RonaldGoldfarb.com.

NOTE: I followed the Iranian revolution with great awe, the internet has become a new front in any future war. The fact that almost all of the coverage of this event came from facebook and twitter is absolutely amazing.

3. More Americans See Democratic Party as “Too Liberal”

http://www.gallup.com/poll/121307/More-Americans-See-Democratic-Party-Too-Liberal.aspx?version=print

NOTE: I understand this isn't a blog, but I am doing the web today and so I make the rules.

by Jeffrey M. Jones

PRINCETON, NJ -- A Gallup Poll finds a statistically significant increase since last year in the percentage of Americans who describe the Democratic Party's views as being "too liberal," from 39% to 46%. This is the largest percentage saying so since November 1994, after the party's losses in that year's midterm elections.

Most major demographic and attitudinal subgroups show at least a slight uptick since 2008 in perceptions that the Democratic Party is too liberal. The increasing perception of the Democrats as too far left comes as President Obama and the Democrats in Congress have expanded the government's role in the economy to address the economic problems facing the country. Additionally, the government is working toward major healthcare reform legislation and strengthening environmental regulations.

Notably, there has been no change over the past year in the percentage of Americans who say the Republican Party is "too conservative," though the 43% who say the party leans too far to the right matches the historical high mark set last year.

As a result, now slightly more Americans perceive the Democratic Party as being too liberal (46%) than view the GOP as being too conservative (43%).

But the Democratic Party still compares favorably to the Republican Party from the standpoint that more Americans say the Democrats' ideology is "about right" (42%) than say this about the Republicans' ideology (34%).

In fact, the 34% who say the GOP is about right is a new low since the question was first asked in 1992, and a far cry from November 1994 and November 2002, when majorities thought the Republicans' views were appropriately balanced.

Independents' Views of the Parties

Political independents' perceptions of the two major parties' ideological orientation are important since both parties need to appeal to the political center in order to win elections. (The vast majority of partisan identifiers predictably view their chosen party's views as being about right and the other party's as being too extreme.)

Currently, independents are more likely to view both parties as being too extreme in either direction than to believe they are about right. But more independents say the Democratic Party (38%) than the Republican Party (25%) is about right.

Independents are a little more likely to say the Republican Party is too conservative than to say the Democratic Party is too liberal, in a slight departure from the results among all Americans.

Since last year, there have been declining perceptions among independents that each party is about right in its ideological orientation -- from 31% to 25% for the Republican Party and from 43% to 38% for the Democratic Party. Most of the decline in regard to the Democratic Party has been associated with in an increase in seeing the party as "too liberal."

Implications

The Democratic Party continues to hold the upper hand over the Republican Party in the current U.S. political environment by a variety of measures, including party identification and party favorable ratings. However, compared to last year, Americans are significantly more likely to see the Democratic Party as too liberal, and as a result, they are somewhat more likely to view the party as being too far left than to perceive the Republican Party as too far right. That may expose a bit of a vulnerability for the Democratic Party, and if perceptions of the Democratic Party as being too liberal continue to grow, the GOP may be able to win back some of the support it has lost in recent years. But that may be possible only if the Republicans are at the same time able to convince the public that they are not too far to the political right.

Survey Methods

Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,011 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted June 14-17, 2009. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for respondents with a land-line telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell-phone only).

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

Comments

[runescape gold]

Actually, I assume this means our Very Serious Beltway Media will shrug its collective shoulders and pontificate on how—because despite the ruling, not everyone in Minnesota agrees on it—The Supreme Court should now be required to hear the matter…

[runescape money]

God bless us, every one.