Huffpolitics on The Huffington Post

Right-Wing Talkers Obsessed With Rape

2009-11-20T10:13:31Z

One of the things that's obviously under-appreciated about right-wing radio and television is the way hosts wield this awesome variety of artful metaphors about the state of the nation.

In this new mashup video from Media Matters, however, you really see the full measure of their rhetorical brilliance, as various figures from the fringe calmly and with clear heads describe the RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE of various things: the nation, the poor, the Statue of Liberty. Michael Savage drops a strange little "rape missing children missing children rape" hip hop verse, and Glenn Beck channels Roman Polanski (Glenn's very topical!). Meanwhile, the human cost of actual rapes continue to outpace the cost of fictional rapes that happen in people's minds.

So, Xanax for everybody, maybe?

WATCH:

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Health Care Reform Closing Arguments: White House, Activists, Labor Unions Eye The Finish Line

2009-11-20T09:52:51Z

With the Senate poised to cast historic votes on health care legislation, a host of activist groups, labor unions, and even the White House itself launched their closing arguments to ensure passage.

On Friday, five different groups released polling numbers, television advertisements, robocalls and fact-checking data in an effort to cushion health care reform from its critics.

The pro-reform organization Health Care For America Now released polling data targeting three swing Democratic votes: Sens. Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), Ben Nelson (Neb.) and Mary Landrieu (La.). In each of those states, between 77 percent (Arkansas and Louisiana) and 80 percent (Nebraska) of voters believe their senators should allow legislation to have an up-or-down vote (i.e. not back a Republican filibuster), according to the results.

Moreover, in each of those states, a public health insurance option "that allows people to choose between their private insurance and a public plan," garnered majority support --- 51 percent in Arkansas, 56 percent in Nebraska and 53 percent in Louisiana.

While HCAN was taking the pulse of swing-state constituents, another organization was showing them their pulse lines. The progressive advocacy organization MoveOn.org launched a television ad on Friday targeting Lincoln, as well as Republican Senator Olympia Snowe (ME), for pushing the so-called trigger-option, which would see a public plan come into existence only if certain economic conditions are met.

Depicting a patient's heart monitor flat-lining as the doctor "waits" for the go-ahead signal, a narrator declares: "Some in Congress want a bill that requires us to wait before a public option can be triggered. Haven't we waited long enough?" (To be fair, under Reid's proposal, the public plan would not start until 2014.)

Moderate Democrats in the Senate weren't the only ones being targeted. Another pro-reform group, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, launched a robocall campaign on Friday thanking Majority Leader Harry Reid for putting a public option in the final language of the Senate's legislation.

"I'm very thankful that Senator Harry Reid has included a public health insurance option in his health care bill. He shocked the political world by being so bold on this issue," says Lee Slaughter, a nurse of 20-plus years, in the call.

Finally, not all the efforts were geared towards the Senate. Also on Friday, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) launched a $1 million ad campaign providing cover and gratitude for Democratic House members who are being targeted by reform opponents for voting in favor of the House's legislation. The list includes: Rep. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.), Brad Ellsworth (D-Ind.), Baron Hill (D-Ind.), Rep. Mike Michaud (D-ME), Rep. Tom Perriello (D-Virg.), Paul Hodes (D-NH), and Rep. Dina Titus (D-Nev.).

All told, the groups were emptying the proverbial tool shed in an effort to pull reform across the finish line -- using a mix of pressure and persuasion, shame and appreciation to corral the needed votes in both chambers of Congress. It's a testament to the legislative process (and the fundraising budgets of these groups) that ten months into the health care reform debate and the ad wars, polling data and robocalls have yet to cease.

The White House, too, is flexing its muscles, though more in the role of referee than political activist. Several "Reality Check" postings were put up on the White House blog Thursday night, calling out claims that reform will encourage abortions at school "sex clinics" and balloon the deficit.

"We are paying attention to all of the disinformation and distortions that the opponents of health insurance reform are pushing around on cable, blogs, viral emails, through their allies," explained on top administration aide. "We'll be posting responses from time to time to be sure the public gets the truth."

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Jesse Jackson Walks Back Rebuke Of Artur Davis Over Health Care Vote

2009-11-19T23:26:12Z

Reverend Jesse Jackson is moderating a stinging rebuke of Rep. Artur Davis over the Alabama Democrat's position on health care legislation.

Days after insisting it was impossible to be both black (which Davis is) and vote against health care reform (which Davis did), Jackson said he called the Alabama gubernatorial candidate to "assure him of my abiding admiration."

"I offer no challenge to his integrity as a leader. Representatives should all vote their conscience in the interest of their constituency," said Jackson, in a statement from his Rainbow PUSH Coalition. "There is a growing disparity among the black and the poor and we desperately need voices and votes."

"Among the black and the poor, the infant mortality rate is higher, life expectancy is shorter, poverty is growing and unemployment is highest," Jackson went on. "We need comprehensive health care that is more accessible and less expensive for all Americans. The historical Davis journey as a change agent continues and his latest quest deserves the support of the caring."

Running for the governor's chair in Alabama, Davis has bucked the Democrat Party on several major pieces of legislation this year. He sided against leadership on the climate change bill and was the lone member of the Congressional Black Caucus to oppose health care reform when it came to a vote two weeks back.

All of which was enough to irk Jackson. At a CBC dinner on Wednesday night, the famed civil rights leader denounced Davis's vote, saying, "We even have blacks voting against the health care bill from Alabama. You can't vote against health care and call yourself a black man."

"Rev. Jackson is entitled to his opinion," Davis told The Hill newspaper the following day. "The voters are entitled to a governor who represents everyone in the state. They're not looking for someone who speaks for a single community."

He added, "His judgment is through the prism of race."

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Rachel Maddow, Spencer Ackerman Provide Rare Moment Of Clarity In The Afghanistan Escalation Debate (VIDEO)

2009-11-19T17:43:32Z

The more I hear about the troop level increases that are ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to win in Afghanistan, the more and more I feel detached from any sense of what this troop escalation is supposed to achieve in practical terms. That doesn't necessarily mean it can't achieve something, it just means that I don't know what 40,000 additional troops will be tasked with, or stationed, or deployed to support. And why 40,000? Where did that number even come from? I suspect that future generations will refer to "40,000 troops" as a "Kagan unit," the same way the "next three to six vitally important months" are a "Friedman unit."

But the escalation conversation in the media hasn't only failed to account for what 40,000 additional Afghanistan bound troops are meant to achieve, it's also run far ahead of whether or not such an escalation is even humanly possible. At the Washington Independent, Spencer Ackerman dug down into whether our current state of military readiness can even achieve the goal of the plus-40,000 crowd. What he found was this: "If President Obama orders an additional 30,000 to 40,000 troops to Afghanistan, he will be deploying practically every available U.S. Army brigade to war, leaving few units in reserve in case of an unforeseen emergency and further stressing a force that has seen repeated combat deployments since 2002."

You don't hear anyone talking about that, do you? But if the rumors are true, Obama is supposedly poised to green-light an additional deployment of 34,000 troops, which "would raise U.S. troop levels in the eight-year war to an all-time high of 102,000." But can it be done?

The shortage of available combat brigades means that an escalation of between 30,000 and 40,000 troops is "not realistic," said Lawrence Korb, a former senior Pentagon official in the Reagan administration who now studies defense issues for the liberal Center for American Progress. To send practically all available soldiers into one of the two wars would leave the U.S. with "no reserve in case you had a problem in Korea."

Obama would have something of a cushion, but not much, in the early months of 2010. An additional five brigades will finish their 12 months of so-called "dwell time" at home between deployments by April 2010, providing an additional 22,600 troops, but by that time, about 10,200 troops will be scheduled to leave Afghanistan, leaving available a net gain of 12,400. More brigades become available in the summer and fall, although others currently in Afghanistan will be ending their scheduled deployments then as well. Under current Pentagon policy, dwell time for the National Guard varies, but can be no shorter than two years, and so it is possible but not certain that two National Guard brigades composed of 6,800 National Guard soldiers might be available for deployment by March 2010 as well, beyond the 24,000 theoretically available now. Pentagon leaders had hoped to extend dwell time this year, but that was before McChrystal's request for additional troops.

Ackerman took up this issue with Rachel Maddow on last night's Rachel Maddow Show:

WATCH:

A critical point: Afghanistan's "surge" won't be like the one in Iraq. As Ackerman points out: "Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan's escalation is being talked about in terms of not being a one-time surge, where when the initial brigades used for escalation go home, the whole thing goes back to where it was before, but a sustained escalation whereby new brigades have to come in and relieve the ones that go home initially."

All of this begs the question: Why has the "40,000 troops" idea taken root, when practical realities throw so many obstacles in the way of this escalation? Well, at the risk of using the tired "What we talk about when we talk about [X]" snowclone, what we talk about when we talk about "40,000 troops" is not the practical needs of the Afghanistan mission, but rather, the "magic number" that President Obama has to clear to avoid constant political excoriation. No one seems to realize that this, essentially, abets political blackmail on the backs of soldiers.

This is how the media is wired to talk about war: "troops" are nothing more than ephemeral concepts, measuring sticks against which we measure who's winning and who's losing politically. Right about now, you might find yourself wanting to blast the media for treating our troops as pure abstractions, but can you blame them? They're just following the example of the president who took them to war in the first place.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Two-Thirds Of States Would Offer Public Option: CBO

2009-11-19T16:55:09Z

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that roughly 33 states -- or two out of every three -- would offer a national, government-run insurance option for consumers even if given the opportunity to opt out of such a system.

"Rather than trying to judge which states might opt out," the CBO wrote in a letter accompanying the Senate's forthcoming legislation, "CBO applied a probability recognizing that public opinion is divided regarding the desirability of a public plan and that some states might have difficulty enacting legislation to opt out. Overall, CBO's assessment was that about two-thirds of the population would be expected to have a public plan available in their state."

The calculation seems drawn entirely out of thin air, as Time magazine's Karen Tumulty notes. And there are reasons to believe it could be either higher or lower than 66.7 percent.

The CBO estimates that only one out of every eight consumers would likely choose the public option. It's a modest, if not low, number but it is large enough to make a governor or state legislature think long and hard about removing that choice of coverage from the state exchange.

On the flip side, however, is the likelihood that by the time the public option becomes operational, statehouses in the country won't lean as Democratic. The public plan, a Senate aide confirms, would not start until 2014. And once it does become operational, states could opt out immediately.

Finally, the CBO estimates that a public plan with negotiated reimbursement rates might end up charging higher premiums than private insurers. This, of course, would make it less attractive to consumers and, by extension, state governments. But the public plan would likely attract riskier consumers -- including those who are elderly or sick or have a pre-existing condition -- which would make it all the more cruel for a governor to upend.

FROM THE CBO:

Roughly one out of eight people purchasing coverage through the exchanges would enroll in the public plan, CBO estimates, meaning that total enrollment in that plan would be 3 million to 4 million. That estimate reflects two main components:

* CBO's assessment is that a public plan paying negotiated rates would attract a broad network of providers but would typically have premiums that were somewhat higher than the average premiums for the private plans in the exchanges. The rates the public plan pays to providers would, on average, probably be comparable to the rates paid by private insurers participating in the exchanges. The public plan would have lower administrative costs than those private plans but would probably engage in less management of utilization for its enrollees and attract a less healthy pool of enrollees. (The effects of that "adverse selection" on the public plan's premiums would be only partially offset by the risk adjustment procedures applicable to all plans operating in the exchanges.)

* CBO's analysis took into account the probability that some states would opt not to allow the public plan to be offered to their residents. Rather than trying to judge which states might opt out, CBO applied a probability recognizing that public opinion is divided regarding the desirability of a public plan and that some states might have difficulty enacting legislation to opt out. Overall, CBO's assessment was that about two-thirds of the population would be expected to have a public plan available in their state.

DNC Raises $11.5 Million In October, Outpacing RNC

2009-11-19T15:54:08Z

The Democratic National Committee raised $11.5 million during the month of October, a party source tells the Huffington Post.

The haul, the source says, is a monthly record for a non-presidential election year since restrictions on campaign fundraising went into effect under the McCain-Feingold Act.

The DNC still finds itself $4.4 million in debt. But the committee is gaining ground on its Republican counterpart. The Republican National Committee reportedly took in $8.79 million in October (up from the $8.74 it raised in September.

As of now, the DNC has $12.3 million cash on hand to the RNC's $11.2 million. They have raised $66.3 million so far in 2009 to the RNC's $69.2 million.

Health Care Reform Opponents Stoking Fears Over Breast Cancer Screenings

2009-11-19T15:24:05Z

The latest alarmist claptrap that's emerged in the debate over health care reform involves a study that's been done by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on breast cancer screenings. That study led that agency to formulate a new set of recommendations on when and how often women should receive mammography exams that were subsequently published in the November 17th edition of the Annals Of Internal Medicine, and which are now being debated by the medical community. The recommendations included suggestions that women not receive routine screenings before the age of 50, and adjusting the "screening interval from 1 year to 2 years.

This has led health care reform opponents to screech about how this is an indication that Nancy Pelosi will ration breast cancer treatment, resulting in women getting riddled with tumors. They seem to be confusing this agency's study and subsequent recommendations with a policy decision that impacts the health care reform bills being debated in Congress. In reality, this has nothing to do with policy, or health care reform, or pending legislation, or previews of coming health care apocalypses. There are just some recommendations that have been made and stuck in a scholarly journal.

How will these recommendations impact your life? Dr. Victor G. Vogel, the national vice president for research at the American Cancer Society, says, "Clinicians should recognize that very few agencies, including the ACS, are altering their screening guidelines based on the USPSTF modeling results, which simply reanalyze previously published data." The ACS recommends, and will continue to recommend "annual mammograms... starting at age 40 years and continuing for as long as a woman is in good health." USPSTF Vice Chair Dr. Diana B. Petiti has said that, "This recommendation is not a recommendation against ever screening women age 40 to 49; it is a recommendation against routine screening of women starting at this age."

And between those two points of view, there is a healthy debate on the merits, based on scientific data. But there's also a lot of confusion, because people like Representative Dave Camp (R-Mich.) go around braying nonsense like this:

"Some people discounted the idea that the government would actually put people to death...And this actually is really showing how the insidious encroachment of government between the patient and their doctor plays out. And it's not a pretty sight."

But the USPSTF has been doing research and making recommendations since 1984! And they've been doing so entirely independent of whatever health care debates have been going on in Congress. There's nothing about their mammography study that involves an "insidious encroachment of government" and they can't force a doctor to do anything to a patient or oblige the government to start "put[ting] people to death." Anyway, Kathleen Sebellius is, I guess, pushing back with what I guess, to Dave Camp, is the equivalent of "reverse insidious encroachment":

"There is no question that the [USPSTF] recommendations have caused a great deal of confusion and worry among women and their families across this country," said US Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius in a statement issued yesterday. "I want to address that confusion head on. The [USPTF] is an outside independent panel of doctors and scientists who make recommendations. They do not set federal policy and they don't determine what services are covered by the federal government."

Despite new evidence presented by the USPSTF, Dr. Sebelius noted that "our policies remain unchanged. Indeed, I would be very surprised if any private insurance company changed its mammography coverage decisions as a result of this action."

As you might suspect, the media is doing a terrible job at providing clarity. Even as I write this, MSNBC is teasing a segment on this story this afternoon by asking, "Did the government back down on guidelines suggesting mammograms for women at age 50 instead of age 40 because of critics comparing it to rationing and even death panels?" Uhm... no! Because there's nothing to back down from!

This article, from NPR, is pretty typical of the coverage this study has garnered. You get plenty of news on the "political brouhaha" that's flared up, with one side spewing shrill doomspeak and the other side trying to point out that no one's going to be denied breast cancer screenings. What's missing are any of the actual facts: what the study recommends, how cancer care agencies are treating the recommendations, what practical effect the agency has over patient care, and, last but not least, the most vital point, pursuant to the health care reform debate, of all: THAT IT HAS NO BEARING ON THE HEALTH CARE REFORM BILL.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Senate Health Care Bill Offers Less Immediate Help Than House Version

2009-11-19T13:55:14Z

If the Senate has its way with health insurance reform, Sandra Ingram, a 63-year-old cancer patient undergoing intensive chemotherapy treatments in Iowa, would lose her health insurance next July.

That's when the temporary health benefits she gets from her former employer will expire. Ingram, who knows no private insurer will sign up a cancer patient at an affordable rate (if at all), will have to wait half a year before she can apply for a temporary public insurance plan, and it'll be another year after that before she's eligible for Medicare.

"The metastasis has reached the bone, the liver and what they're doing is keeping me alive as long as possible," Ingram told the Huffington Post. She said she'll keep doing one chemo treatment or another until either the cancer is gone or she's tired of fighting it. She doesn't know what to expect in six months -- but for now, she's not giving up.

"I'm fighting this booger," said Ingram, who lost her job in January. "I hate cancer. It's a monster."

Ingram wouldn't lose her benefits under the House plan. While the Senate bill does not extend health benefits for laid-off workers, the House version would keep Ingram covered through next year and until 2013, when the big reforms -- the exchange, through which people can choose from a range of affordable policies, including a public option -- are up and running. The bill allows any laid-off worker who continued his or her employer's health care plan under the government's COBRA law to keep that coverage until the exchange is in place. (The Senate bill pushes the start date of the big reforms back to 2014.)

COBRA gives fired workers 18 months during which they can pay full price for their policy under their former employer's group plan -- not very affordable, but typically less than it would cost to buy insurance on the individual market. The stimulus bill provided for 65 percent reduced COBRA payments, and it's likely that Democratic leaders in Congress will try to renew that benefit for another year before the Christmas break.

Ingram said her reduced COBRA payment is $270 a month. There is a program in Iowa for people who've been denied insurance, but she said she thought it would cost more than $800 a month. Under the House plan, she'd get a much better deal.

"The Senate is selling us out," Ingram said. She's been calling Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Iowa Republican who opposes the bill altogether, and urging him to flip his position.

Both bills create a $5 billion temporary public insurance option for people who have been denied insurance due to a pre-existing condition. The Senate bill gives the Health Secretary 90 days to set up the "high-risk pool," whereas the House bill wants that pool ready for swimming on New Year's Day.

And the Senate bill is stingier about how soon some people can jump in.

Mary Duffy is a 60-year-old three-time cancer survivor in California whose COBRA benefits will expire in December. Under the House version, Duffy will be eligible for the high-risk pool as soon as a private insurer refuses to cover her or offers her a bad deal -- she does not also have to wait six months. Under the Senate version, a person must both wait six months and have a pre-existing condition to qualify.

Banks Get Small Win On Accounting Standards

2009-11-19T13:53:35Z

A House panel approved a provision Thursday that calls for a new oversight body dominated by bank regulators to advise on accounting rules for banks, a toned-down version of an earlier proposal that would have stripped the independence of the board that sets financial accounting standards.

The previous amendment, offered by Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-Colo.), would have effectively allowed banks to set their own accounting standards in rough economic times. In effect, a board dominated by bank regulators would have been allowed to change the rules so banks could appear healthier than they actually are by overvaluing assets and undervaluing losses and liabilities.

A variety of investor groups joined with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to oppose the move. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which oversees the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), also opposed it. Prominent investors, like legendary hedge-fund manager James Chanos, called it "a monstrous idea". Former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker said it was "terrible".

Perlmutter's new amendment, jointly offered with Rep. Frank Lucas (R-Okla.), simply calls for the proposed council overseeing systemic threats to the financial system to "review and submit comments... with respect to an existing or proposed accounting principle, standard, or procedure."

"There's absolutely no need for the legislation whatsoever. The banking regulators can already send in comments to FASB -- in fact, they already do it," said Lynn E. Turner, former chief accountant for the SEC from 1998 to 2001. "This is nothing other than an effort to give banking regulators and the banks control over the standards-setting process."

One thing to note is that of the proposed council's nine voting members, seven of them oversee banks and other financial firms that would benefit from a relaxing of accounting rules in tough economic times.

"It's intended to give banking regulators a greater voice to bring pressure on FASB and the SEC to make standards more banker-friendly, as opposed to investor-friendly. In doing so, this amendment guarantees we'll end up with less transparency coming out of this crisis than we had going in," Turner said.

The American Bankers Association, which had vigorously supported Perlmutter's original amendment, immediately applauded Thursday's vote.

"It is well-documented that accounting policies contributed to the financial crisis," Edward L. Yingling, ABA president and CEO, said in a statement.

By that Yingling means that because banks were forced to recognize potential losses, their balance sheets were hit hard. People could see that banks had made some terrible loans and in some cases took excessive risk.

"This amendment would, for the first time, instruct other regulators acting in their capacity as members of the Council to monitor accounting policies and comment on them," Yingling said. "The Perlmutter-Lucas amendment will empower the Council to work with the SEC to mitigate concerns over accounting standards that pose systemic risk and threaten the stability of the United States financial system."

The Huffington Post earlier reported that:

Astonishingly, at a time when the public is crying out for greater regulation to limit excessive risk-taking by financial institutions, the banks are trying to get Congress to agree that the next time there's a big downturn, they should have the ability to alter their accounting standards -- essentially, fudge the numbers -- so that the public and investors won't be able to tell how insolvent they really are. By ignoring their declining asset values, they can avoid the standard requirement of raising more capital.

The provision amends the Financial Stability Improvement Act of 2009. The full bill continues to be debated by the House Financial Services Committee.

Get HuffPost Business On Facebook and Twitter!

Huckabee Calls Knee-Jerk GOP Attacks On Obama 'Deplorable' And 'Shameful'

2009-11-19T13:50:41Z

During a relatively unnoticed speech in early November, former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said he found it "deplorable" and "shameful" that his fellow Republicans were attacking the president for even the most trivial or well-intentioned matters.

Appearing before the Hudson Union Society to discuss his forthcoming book, "A Simple Christmas", Huckabee took umbrage with the criticism levied by some conservatives over Obama's visit to Dover Air Force base to see the coffins of returning soldiers.

When he [Barack Obama] was at Dover the other day, and went there to pay respect for soldiers, I heard a lot of people on the Right say "Aw, that's just a cheap photo-op." No, I think it was the Commander-in-Chief of our military paying respect to a dead soldier, and I'm grateful that he did that, and I was proud of him for doing that. And I think we all -- as Americans -- should give him credit for doing that.

He continued:

When he and Michele hosted the tricker-treaters on Halloween, quit finding something wrong with that. Say "Good, I'm glad that he and the First Lady are treating children to an experience at the White House." And I just find it deplorable that some people on my end of the aisle want to find everything wrong and nothing right about the man as a man.

The underlying point, Huckabee concluded, was that knee-jerk criticism to the president was counter-productive to civil debate. "I hated it when people did that to George Bush," he said. "They couldn't even laugh at the man's jokes they found something wrong with everything and if we do that to Barack Obama, then shame on us, shame on us. No wonder our country is so divided when that happens."

The remarks are fairly vintage Huckabee -- who, for all the firebrand conservative talking points he espouses, has maintained a image and reputation for Southern amiability. It also seems likely to spur even greater anger at his politics among the die-hard conservatives who regarded him with suspicion in 2008. As the conservative site GOP12 -- which first posted on the exchange -- pointed out, Huckabee's remarks came one day after Rush Limbaugh appeared on Fox News Sunday, during which he criticized Obama for his trip to Dover.

The video of the Huckabee exchange can be viewed here. It starts at roughly the 25 minute mark.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Palin To Appear In The Not "Real Virginia"

2009-11-19T13:11:48Z

On December 5, 2009, Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin will head to Fairfax, Virginia, for a stop on her book tour to promote "Going Rogue".

The location would, normally, be rather insignificant -- another shopping center locale on a book tour with many such forums. But it represents one of the few forays Palin will make into supposed "blue" state territory.

During the campaign, McCain senior policy adviser Nancy Pfotenhauer famously declared that northern Virginia -- namely, Fairfax County -- was not "real Virginia" because exiles from Washington D.C. had filtered there. She was largely rebuked for the line and ended up walking it back. But Palin, too, pushed the idea that there was, in fact, an inauthentic U.S.A., to contrast with those "pro-America areas of this great nation."

The former vice presidential candidate's book tour consist mainly of areas that she likely sees as "pro-American." According to her Facebook page, she'll be traveling to Richland, Washington, Roswell, New Mexico, Fayetteville, Arkansas, Billings, Montana, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Colorado Springs, Colorado, Salt Lake City, Utah, and Sandpoint, Idaho.

The few notable exceptions, it seems, are Minneapolis, Minnesota, (site of the 2008 Republican National Convention) and Sioux City, Iowa -- a key site in the first-in-the-nation caucus state. One of the only locations in the northeast is Washington, Pennsylvania. There is no stop in New England.

All told, the schedule of the book tour may best be described as playing to one's base. But it's not entirely consistent with Palin's own book. As she writes in "Going Rogue":

"Like every other ordinary American, I'm tried of the divisions and the special interests that pit us against one another. It doesn't matter whether you grew up in Skagway or San Francisco, you're an American."

UPDATE: An earlier version of this piece said that the only northeast stop on the book tour is Washington, Pennsylvania. It's not. Palin is also stopping in Rochester, New York.

Palin: Sexism Only Matters When It Hurts Me

2009-11-19T13:07:08Z

On the matter of Sarah Palin, Newsweek magazine, and THE SEXISM, I think that the Washington City Paper's Amanda Hess has basically won the entire discussion.

Is the Newsweek cover sexist? Yes. But let's put the photo back into context for a minute: Sarah Palin's entire existence is sexist.

Let's try to imagine, for a moment, the thought process that went into creating this Newsweek cover image : "We need to convey that Palin sucks really bad! Let's take some photo of Palin lookin' sexy, slap it on the cover of Newsweek, and then use her sexuality in attempt to draw attention to all the terrible things this woman has brought upon us."

Hey! That sounds kind of like what John McCain did when he chose Palin as his VP: Found an attractive lady, slapped her on to his campaign, and used her image as a sexy lady in order to distract people from her scant qualifications, her total lack of concern for women's issues, and her complete suckiness as a candidate.

Real talk. As Hess points out, Palin has been subjected to a noticeable share of deplorable treatment. And I think it's absurd to suggest that Newsweek selected this photo from Runner's World magazine because they thought it would cast the subject of their cover story in a neutral light or elucidate the magazine's underlying point. I think that Newsweek made the choice they did to ensure that if they couldn't manage a discrediting of Palin on the merits, they could plant their discrediting through some cheap subtextual shortcut.

But Hess is correct when she points out that "the game works both ways." You remember that whole day of our lives that was given over to that riveting discussion over whether the phrase "lipstick on a pig," was a sexist slag at Sarah Palin? Because at one point, Palin had used the word "lipstick" in a joke? That bought Palin a whole day of media figures rising to her defense over something that was plainly nonsensical. Hess puts it like this: "I am sick and tired of only having to care about it when that sexism means something bad for Sarah Palin." But you know what? That, too, is "oh-so-expected by now."

RELATED:
Sarah Palin's Entire Existence Is Sexist [The Sexist]

PREVIOUSLY, on the HUFFINGTON POST:
I'm Officially Shutting Down This 'Lipstick On A Pig' Discussion

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

WaPo's Cohen Suggests That Nidal Hasan Investigation Needs More McCarthyism

2009-11-19T12:30:03Z

As facts continue to emerge about alleged Fort Hood gunman Nidal Hasan, reasonable people should be able to agree that serious questions need to be asked regarding how he advanced in his career and why he was apathetically shuttled from assignment to assignment by a military bureaucracy that just didn't feel like confronting the fact that Hasan seemed to be a deeply disturbed individual.

Or, if you are the Washington Post's Richard Cohen, you could just suggest that what's needed is a recapturing of that old McCarthyist spirit:

Who promoted Peress? That was the question posed by Sen. Joseph McCarthy, the indefatigable red-hunter of the 1950s, regarding an obscure army dentist named Irving Peress who was promoted from captain to major despite having refused to answer questions regarding his loyalty. That right-wing rallying cry ought to be revived, only this time to pose a much more serious question: Who the hell promoted Nidal Malik Hasan?

Need I point out that Cohen's entire premise is psychotically confused? Irving Peress' crimes -- insofar as there was once a time when these could be considered "crimes" -- was to refuse to disclose his affiliations with the American Labor Party when he filled out a "loyalty-review form." On the other hand, Nidal Hasan is charged with thirteen counts of premeditated murder.

But more to the point, what the Fort Hood tragedy clearly calls for is a reasonable, case-specific inquiry into what steps could have been taken to prevent these murders, and who was ultimately responsible for failing to take them. But here we have Cohen, gratuitously invoking the need for some sort of frantic witch-hunt which, followed to its logical absurdity, would lead the inquiry far from the facts of the case, into the paranoid territory where people are persecuted for simply holding certain specific beliefs.

An ordinary columnist, capable of thinking clearly, could have written about the need to attend to the bureaucratic failures that could have saved lives without veering off into the phantom zone. But, to borrow from David Lowery: in the mind of Richard Cohen, wheels they turn and gears they grind, buildings collapse in slow motion, and trains collide.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Conyers Rips Obama, Emanuel For 'Bowing Down' To GOP On Health Care

2009-11-19T11:21:24Z

Rep. John Conyers took a broad swipe at President Obama and his chief of staff on Thursday, accusing them of "bowing down" to "nutty right-wing" health care proposals in a principle-less effort to get legislation passed.

Appearing on the Bill Press Show, the longtime Michigan Democrat said he was tired of the just-get-something-done attitude of Rahm Emanuel, and insisted that Obama had moved far away from being the "ardent single-payer enthusiast" he once was.

"I'm getting tired of saving Obama's can in the White House," said Conyers. "I mean, he only won by five votes in the House, and this bill wasn't anything to write home about. The public option is only available, which is the only way you manage cost and get some competition to 1,300 other health insurance companies, the only way he could have got that through is that progressives held their nose and voted for it anyway."

Asked if the president had shown enough leadership in the health care debate, Conyers facetiously wondered why Press would ask the question.

"Of course not, of course not," he said. "You know, holding hands out and beer on Friday nights in the White House and bowing down to every nutty right-wing proposal about health care, and saying on occasion that public options aren't all that important is doing a disservice to the Barack Obama that I first met who was an ardent single-payer enthusiast himself."

The 22-term congressman was critical of the White House on fronts beyond just health care. He led off the interview by declaring that he was tied of "trying to stop the war in Afghanistan from surging." He also took several swipes at Emanuel, whom he called, with a slightly derogatory tone, his "buddy."

"That is essentially what Rahm Emanuel has said: Just give us anything and we will declare victory," said Conyers. "Not only is it not a victory, but when it doesn't work, guess who will come at him: the same guys that were saying let's go along with anything... This is all my buddy Rahm Emanuel trying to get anything. But look the bill doesn't go into effect for three years. Many of the people that we are trying to help will be dead by then."

Jon Stewart, Lou Dobbs Discuss CNN, Argue Over Health Care Reform (VIDEO)

2009-11-19T10:28:56Z

The Daily Show's Jon Stewart welcomed former CNN anchor Lou Dobbs with a Mariachi band because... why not? Over a long interview, only portions of which aired, Stewart and Dobbs discussed the newsman's decision to quit on the air... or not quit on the air... or come to some sort of mutual understanding tied up in contracts that dissolved the relationship between CNN and the controversial anchor. Dobbs basically offered that CNN "wanted to move in another direction," to which Stewart replied, "I see the direction they're going in, I believe it's called down."

Then, praising Dobbs for having "abhorrent and wrong" views that are nevertheless "consistent," Stewart pressed Dobbs on the issues he invoked in his "I'm quitting, in some contractual fashion" speech: "The issue seems to be -- and you allude to it in your resignation speech -- that the winds of change are blowing this country -- people have, apparently, lost their minds. there seems to be a panic that we have lost the fabric of our society and I'm having trouble getting a handle on what has happened that is so drastic that people would think it's tyranny or fascism or Hitler-esque."

Dobbs noted that "what has happened" goes back to previous administrations, and that the Bush administration fostered a great "indifference" to the way policy impacted the lives of Americans. Which strikes me as, uhm... suddenly very generalist! Stewart basically countered by saying that it seems to be the coming of the Obama administration that has set everyone's "hair on fire." Dobbs cited the "Obama health care legislation" as something that's uniquely scaring people about the current administration with the prospect of fundamental change.

Stewart countered by pointing out that there's really no such thing as "Obama health care legislation" ("Obama hasn't really said anything," Stewart said, "to his discredit."), adding, "We're not a fragile country. This idea that somehow getting a health care plan through takes us back to the days pre-revolution is bunk. There's a fear out there that seems irrational." Stewart contended that individuals like David Addington, architect of the unitary executive and the torture policy in the previous administration, represented to him a more frightening agent of change than an administration that seems to, essentially, want to "expand Medicare."

Dobbs allowed that he thought that "part of that fear is simply catching up with the events of some years ago." Stewart observed, "Why do they always catch up to the fears during the Democratic administrations? It feels like all the people that want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans."

WATCH:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Exclusive - Lou Dobbs Extended Interview Pt. 1

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Crisis

The Daily Show has made extended versions of the interview available.

PART TWO: Dobbs raises a good point about the lack of priority on ending the unemployment crisis, but insists that the current state of play -- where one party controls the legislature and the White House -- doesn't allow any avenue for the "expression of frustration." Stewart counters by pointing out that elections are the avenue for this expression, and that people are confusing "losing an election" with tyranny.

Dobbs goes on to discuss at length his contention that government is best led from the center, and that the past two administrations are scaring the center. Stewart's contention is that the crazy anger spilling out into the street isn't centrist, noting the lack of angry protesters carrying signs that read "Be reasonable!"

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Exclusive - Lou Dobbs Extended Interview Pt. 2

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Crisis

PART THREE:

In this final part, Dobbs and Stewart wind down their discussion, with Dobbs continuing to press for a return to centrism, and insist that the nation is in a "delicate" state. Stewart won't sign on to the idea that the nation is somehow fragile. "It's trumped-up fear that's being used as a wedge."

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Exclusive - Lou Dobbs Extended Interview Pt. 3

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Crisis

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Lieberman Pressured By Yalies To Back Health Care Reform

2009-11-19T09:31:15Z

The local campaign pressuring Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) to support health care reform accelerated on Thursday, after a group of more than 650 Yale University students, faculty and staff urged him to reconsider his threat to filibuster legislation.

In two letters to the Connecticut Independent -- who is an alumnus of Yale -- the group takes the complimentary rather than the threatening approach. Applauding Lieberman for his "tireless work on behalf of the people of Connecticut," as well as his efforts to "revitalize economically depressed areas" in the state, they implore him to be on the right side of history in the current legislative debate.

"We, the undersigned members of the Yale University community, urge you to reconsider your stated opposition to a health care bill including a public option," reads the first letter, signed by 650 students, faculty and staff at the university. "We especially urge you not to vote against cloture of a bill including a public option. It is time to pass comprehensive health care reform to reduce costs and premiums, expand coverage, increase competition, and ban discrimination based on pre-existing conditions. A public option is an essential element of such reform."

"Health care reform deserves an up or down vote on the Senate floor," reads a second letter signed by 15 student groups, including Yale American Medical School Association and Jews for Justice at Yale. "The millennial generation turned out in record numbers in 2008, supporting candidates across the country who advocated universal, affordable health care. Now, for the first time in our lives, a house of Congress has passed meaningful health care reform."

"We ask that you stand with your supporters in 2006, and with millions of Americans across the country, and allow the Senate to vote on health care reform with a strong public option. Please do not stand in the way of giving Americans an opportunity for health care reform that is so desperately needed."

The tack taken by these students and groups is a decidedly different form of pressure than that which has been applied to the senator within Washington D.C. -- appealing to Lieberman's better angels rather than levying threats of retribution. Last week, local Connecticut rabbis held a candlelight vigil outside Lieberman's home, urging him to understand the moral imperative of passing reform.

Whether this proves to be a more effective form of persuasion will be seen shortly, as a cloture vote on health care reform could be just weeks away. It is notable, however, that when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) held a health care meeting on Wednesday with Democratic senators sitting on the fence, he excluded Lieberman from the group.

LETTER ONE:

Dear Senator Lieberman,

We, the undersigned members of the Yale University community, urge you to reconsider your stated opposition to a health care bill including a public option. We especially urge you not to vote against cloture of a bill including a public option. It is time to pass comprehensive health care reform to reduce costs and premiums, expand coverage, increase competition, and ban discrimination based on pre-existing conditions. A public option is an essential element of such reform.

A recent public opinion poll found that 68% of likely Connecticut voters support a public option, including 73% of independents. Only 21% oppose such an option. Though CBO projects only a small minority of Americans will opt for coverage under a public plan, its existence will foster competition amongst private insurance companies, helping to ensure a basic level of quality and affordability.

Senator, you have long been a champion of expanding and improving health care. Through introduction of the Accelerating Cures Act to streamline biomedical research and the FairCare Act to address health care inequalities in minority communities, through proposals like MediChoice and MediKids to expand coverage, co-sponsorship of the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act, and in your efforts to improve mental health services to our veterans, you have championed a cause supported not only by your own conscience but by the people of Connecticut. And in the 2006 campaign you expressly advocated for universal health care.

As faculty, staff, and students at Yale University, we hope you will remember and honor this history of advocacy, and continue to fight on our behalf. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Brett Edkins
Yale Law School, J.D. Candidate, 2011

Alison Frick
Yale Law School, J.D. Candidate, 2012

Alex Iftimie
Yale Law School, J.D. Candidate, 2011

Full signatures list: http://www.gopetition.com/online/31846.html

LETTER TWO:

Dear Senator Lieberman:

As constituents, we have always been impressed with your tireless work on behalf of the people of Connecticut. As students at your alma mater, Yale University, we have seen you as a reminder and exemplar of our responsibility to give back to our community through public service, and to keep strong to our ideals. Perhaps most importantly, as concerned and engaged citizens, we have long admired your commitment to a fair and just society, an issue of great importance to our organizations and our members.

Our generation has seen firsthand the disastrous results when government becomes more concerned with helping the powerful than protecting everyday people. Whether it is your support of the right of workers to organize, your work to revitalize economically depressed areas, or your efforts to provide affordable energy and housing, you have always stood as a strong defender of the middle class.

Every generation has an opportunity to make a difference, to stand up and make the world a better place. We believe that universal access to health care is one of the defining issues of our time. Our willingness to fight to ensure that all people have affordable access to health care says much about who we are as a country and what it is that we value.

Generations in the past have risen to the challenge, creating social security, ensuring the protection of all citizens' civil rights and providing health care to the elderly and the needy. For our generation, universal health care is that opportunity, our chance to improve the lives of all Americans and participate in the shared project of defining our country's values.

We were particularly heartened by your support for universal health care, and your promise during the 2006 election to deliver affordable health care and universal coverage to the people of Connecticut.

That is why we were so surprised, disappointed, and truly disheartened by your recent suggestion you would not allow a vote on health care reform that includes a strong public option. As we see it, the public option provides the best means of lowering health care costs, maintaining individual choice, and reducing the deficit, a burden that will otherwise fall on the shoulders of our generation and that of our children.

Health care reform deserves an up or down vote on the Senate floor.

The millennial generation turned out in record numbers in 2008, supporting candidates across the country who advocated universal, affordable health care. Now, for the first time in our lives, a house of Congress has passed meaningful health care reform.

We ask that you stand with your supporters in 2006, and with millions of Americans across the country, and allow the Senate to vote on health care reform with a strong public option. Please do not stand in the way of giving Americans an opportunity for health care reform that is so desperately needed.

Sincerely,

Black Students Alliance at Yale
College Democrats of Connecticut
Jews for Justice at Yale
Movimiento Estudiantil Chicana/o de Aztlan de Yale
New Haven Action Fund
Students for a New American Politics
Yale American Medical School Association
Yale Amnesty International
Yale College Democrats
Yale Divinity School Committee for Social Justice
Yale Divinity School Seminarians for Reproductive Justice
Yale Law Democrats
Yale School of Management Democrats
Yale Students for Dodd
Yale Universities Allied for Essential Medicines

Rep. DeFazio: Fire 'Timmy' Geithner

2009-11-18T20:45:15Z

Rep. Peter DeFazio called for the firing of President Barack Obama's top two economic aides on Wednesday, accusing them of pursuing a recovery plan skewed too heavily in Wall Street's favor.

The Oregon Democrat told MSNBC's Ed Schultz that he was dismayed with the administration's lack of focus on job creation. He said it was time to dismiss both White House economic adviser Larry Summers and Treasury Secretary "Timmy Geithner."

"We think it is time, maybe, that we turn our focus to Main Street -- we reclaim some of the unspent [TARP] funds, we reclaim some of the funds that are being paid back, which will not be paid back in full, and we use it to put people back to work. Rebuilding America's infrastructure is a tried and true way to put people back to work," said DeFazio.

"Unfortunately, the President has an adviser from Wall Street, Larry Summers, and a Treasury Secretary from Wall Street, Timmy Geithner, who don't like that idea," he added. "They want to keep the TARP money either to continue to bail out Wall Street...or to pay down the deficit. That's absurd."

Asked specifically whether Geithner should stay in his job, DeFazio replied: "No.

"Especially if you look back at the AIG scandal," he said, "and Goldman and others who got their bets paid off in full...with taxpayer money through AIG. We channeled the money through them. Geithner would not answer my question when I said, 'Were those naked credit default swaps by Goldman or were they a counterparty?' He would not answer that question."

DeFazio said that there is a growing consensus among the Congressional Progressive Caucus that Geithner needs to be removed. He added that some lawmakers were "considering questions regarding him and other economic advisers" -- though a petition calling for the Treasury Secretary's removal had not been drafted, he said.

"[Obama] is being failed by his economic team," DeFazio concluded. "We may have to sacrifice just two more jobs to get millions back for Americans."

Neither the White House or the Treasury Department immediately returned a request for comment.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Nelson: I'm Comfortable Being Lone Democrat To Derail Reform

2009-11-18T19:10:34Z

Ben Nelson, a key conservative Senate Democrats, said on Wednesday that he was pleased with the changes party leadership had made to health care legislation, specifically on matters of deficit reduction. But the Nebraska senator, whose vote has been elusive to pin down so far, said he would be comfortable being the lone Democrat to prevent the bill from overcoming a Republican filibuster.

"I'm very comfortable having my vote, whatever it is, whichever way it goes," Nelson said, in response to a question from the Huffington Post. "I've said that from the beginning. There are other ways. I just have to make a decision based on what I think is best for the people of Nebraska and the people of our country. And then we will let the chips fall wherever they fall."

Speaking to reporters following a Democratic caucus meeting, Nelson said he is pleased with the direction that the bill was taking, though he wants to see specific language, and he remains concerned about the structure of the government-run insurance option.

"I've said, for me, all along, that [a public plan with an opt-out provision for states] is not the way in which I would proceed. And that has problems as far as I'm concerned," he said. As for an alternative proposal that would allow states to opt-in to a national government-run plan, Nelson added; "I certainly would look at that more positively than an opt-out."

On Wednesday night, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid unveiled the preliminary outlines of his health care reform legislation. The bill includes the opt-out public option, a tax on expensive insurance plans, and language on abortion that does not go as far as the House's largely restrictive provision. Estimates of the proposal have it costing $847 billion over the next decade, covering 31 million uninsured, and reducing the deficit by $127 billion during the next ten years.

"Any time you add more to deficit reduction you have to say that it is a move in the right direction," Nelson said. "So, there is no doubt that there has been some areas of improvement. That clearly would be one. But again, you have to have a lot of faith and trust in the scoring system."

The Nebraska Democrat did essentially proclaim that he would vote with his party on the first parliamentary hurdle -- a procedural vote that would allow the bill to be brought to the floor for amending and debate. He would not commit to voting on the second parliamentary hurdle -- another cloture vote to end that debate.

"I said I won't make a decision until I've seen and reviewed the language of the legislation," he said. "That's fairly clear. And it has been that from the very beginning. As to the question about sometimes wavering -- I've never wavered on this. I've been clear from the beginning that you have to see the actual language before you can make a decision on whether you are going to vote for cloture on the motion to proceed... I'm still undecided. That's different than being on the fence."

Fox News Runs Old Palin Campaign Footage, Reports It As Book-Signing Crowds [UPDATE]

2009-11-18T17:38:40Z

Last week, Jon Stewart and The Daily Show caught Fox News' Sean Hannity running old footage of September Tea Party crowds in an attempt to make Michele Bachmann's smaller November Tea Party shindig appear to be more well-attended than it was. Is Fox up to the same tricks today? Faiz Shakir at ThinkProgress thinks so, and he pulls a segment that seems to tout the crowds that greeted Sarah Palin on the stump during the 2008 campaign as throngs that are gathering to purchase Sarah Palin's book, Going Rogue.

In the clip below, watch as Fox anchor Gregg Jarrett describes "pictures just coming into us" as "huge crowds" that have amassed while Palin is "promoting her new book." The pictures that are supposedly "just coming in" are actually year-old video from the presidential campaign:

[WATCH]

For what it's worth, I think this appears to be little more than a momentary disconnect between newsreader and news producer than a conscious attempt to mislead. I am sure that Fox News is more than aware that crowds are mainly gathering today at a mall in Michigan, where Palin is expected to appear, and not at some rally that Palin presided over today. Of course, the fact that Fox was caught manipulating footage in a misleading manner is only going to spur further suspicions when things like this happen.

MSNBC has also been reporting on Palin's book signing all day today. It's not something that Fox is likely to have missed, and it looks a little something like this:

[WATCH]

UPDATE: Fox has released a statement:

"This was a production error in which the copy editor changed a script and didn't alert the control room to update the video...There will be an on-air explanation during Happening Now on Thursday."

Mark Silva, writing for the Chicago Tribune's The Swamp blog, reports that "that it's highly like [sic] that serious disciplinary action will be taken for those responsible behind the scenes in the control room. News executives there consider this to have been a sloppy and unnecessary error.'

UPDATE, AGAIN: Fox aired an apology for the video mistake this afternoon:

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

One Million Will Lose Unemployment Benefits In January Unless Congress Acts

2009-11-18T16:55:53Z

One million people will stop receiving unemployment benefits in January unless Congress makes a move before the Christmas recess, according to an analysis by the National Employment Law Project.

Two weeks ago, after an epic delay by Republican senators, Congress passed a 14-week extension for all states, with an additional 6 weeks for states with unemployment above 8.5 percent.

But it turns out that extension was built on the extended benefits authorized under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which does not allow for additional extensions after Dec. 31. So for people currently collecting unemployment, there will be no new extensions of benefits after New Year's Day unless Congress acts.

The extension that passed Congress on Nov. 4 was designed to help the thousands of unemployed people already exhausting their extensions every week. Those thousands would be a trickle compared to the tidal wave of people whose benefits would dry up in January.

Congress also needs to decide whether to extend a 65 percent subsidy of COBRA health benefits and an extra $25 per week in unemployment checks.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (Md.) said Democrats would at least deal with unemployment and COBRA benefits. And Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) said, "I think clearly we need to move on the unemployment insurance and the COBRA."

It might seem like a no-brainer, but the similarly obvious 14-week extension languished in the Senate for six weeks after it passed the House.

"Any delay reauthorizing the ARRA will have devastating consequences not just for workers and the struggling communities hardest hit by the recession," said National Employment Law Project executive director Christine Owens in a statement. "By early December, state agencies that administer unemployment benefits will be forced to notify workers that the program will be shut down by the end of year, as required by federal law. If Congress doesn't reauthorize the programs as soon as possible, this ARRA deadline will create total chaos for the state agencies and workers facing an uncertain future."

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

New Newsweek 's Palin Photo Controversy: Did Photographer Breach Contract?

2009-11-18T16:45:32Z

So, have you heard about this Sarah Palin sexy-lady photo from Runner's World magazine that's festooning the new issue of Newsweek and causing Palin to go bonkers on Facebook, because of "the sexism?"

Maybe you have, because the news has been doing a story on it every quarter hour, because of "the ratings!" Well, whether or not you think the cover is intended as an insult or if you buy Newsweek EIC Jon Meacham's serving of incomprehensible word-soup that he proffered instead of an intelligible explanation, there are bigger problems now because, as Jeff Bercovici reports over at Daily Finance, the original photographer may have violated a contract by selling the image to Newsweek:

That photographer, Brian Adams, could not immediately be reached, and his agent, Kelly Price, declined to comment, saying, "I keep all of my clients' business private." But a spokeswoman for Runner's World confirms that Adams's contract contained a clause stipulating that his photos of Palin would be under embargo for a period of one year following publication -- meaning until August 2010. "Runner's World did not provide Newsweek with its cover image," the spokeswoman said. "It was provided to Newsweek by the photographer's stock agency, without Runner's World's knowledge or permission." The spokeswoman declined to say whether Runner's World intends to respond to Adams's breach of contract with legal action.

Bercovici has more on the whole who-knew-what-and-when questions that revolve around this contract matter, so hie thee hence.

RELATED:
Palin photographer breached contract with sale to Newsweek [Daily Finance]

PREVIOUSLY, on the HUFFINGTON POST:
Newsweek Defends Provocative Palin Cover

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

American Family Association's "War On Christmas" Gap Boycott Is A Fatwa Fail

2009-11-18T16:15:43Z

Christmas seems to start earlier and earlier every year, and with it comes the idiotic fringe-media meme that's come to be known as the "War On Christmas."

Paced by the heavy breathing and pearl-clutching of such luminaries as Bill O'Reilly, the "War On Christmas" is a figment of the imagination that every year threatens to be a straight-up downer on everyone's festivities. For the purpose of edification, I'll offer the best explanation of the "War On Christmas" I can, my own:

Why the "war?" Well, as near as I can tell, being the top-dog, religion-wise, just isn't good enough for some people. There apparently exist adherents who are so feckless and inconstant in their faith, that nothing short of constant validation will do. So when one of these lesser lights walks into Walgreens and hears "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas And Praise Be To You Who Were Smart Enough To Practice The Best Religion Ever!" something inside these adherents' psyches snaps, breaks, and they come to develop an insane persecution complex.

Every year, I hope this will be the year that everyone starts taking an adult attitude toward the Christmas season, and every year, some nimrod comes along to disappoint me. First out of the gate this year is the American Family Association, who on November 11th, issued a fatwa against the Gap, which is apparently oppressing Christians with cable-knit sweaters, or something:

AFA is calling for a limited two-month boycott of Gap, Old Navy and Banana Republic, the three stores owned by San Francisco-based Gap Inc., over the company's censorship of the word "Christmas."

The boycott is part of our ongoing campaign to encourage businesses, communities and individuals to put Christ back in Christmas. The boycott runs from November 1 through Christmas Day.

For years, Gap has refused to use the word Christmas in its television commercials, newspaper ads and in-store promotions, despite tens of thousands of consumer requests to recognize Christmas and in spite of repeated requests from AFA to do the same.

Last year, Gap issued this politically-correct statement to Christmas shoppers: "Gap recognizes that many traditions are celebrated throughout this season and we feel it is important to display holiday signage that is inclusive to everyone."

Ahh, but, as Amanda Terkel astutely pointed out yesterday, the "AFA's first shot in the war is a misfire," because the Gap currently has an ad up on the air that features Gap-clad cheerleaders shouting, "Go Christmas!"

Dan Neil at the Los Angeles Times had documented the fail in full:

Surf on over to YouTube and watch Gap's latest 30-second spot, titled "Go Ho Ho" (Crispin Porter + Bogusky). The spot -- which is in heavy rotation on network and cable TV -- features a group of insanely athletic dancers leaping and twirling and stomp-cheering around a white log-cabin set. They chant, "Go Christmas, go Hanukkah, go Kwanzaa, go solstice. . . . Do whatever you wannukkah and to all a cheery night."

There it is, right up front, enjoying pride of place: the C-word.

WATCH:

Of course, if you are an idiot, like the American Family Association, what you do now is whine and cry about how the Gap is putting Christmas on the same footing as infidel holidays like Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, and Solstice, and ending the spot with the tag "Ready For Holiday Cheer" instead of "Ready To Minister To The Juvenile Needs Of Christians Who Are Disaffected For No Good Reason By Making A Big Proclamation Of Their Obvious Spiritual Superiority."

RELATED:
Right-Wing American Family Association Misfires In The War On Christmas [ThinkProgress]
Gap's Christmas cheer makes a boycott backfire [L.A. Times]

PREVIOUSLY, on the HUFFINGTON POST:
O'Reilly's War On Christmas Goes Retail
Babylon And On: Fox And Friends Stage 'War' On Christmas Circle-Jerk

The Chances That Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Will Be Released From Custody After His Trial Equal Zero

2009-11-18T14:53:32Z

Earlier today, Sam Stein reported on Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), taking a new approach to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed terror-trial fearmongering by raising the specter of O.J. Simpson. I gather that what Grassley wanted to convey was an scenario in which the ghost of Johnnie Cochran gets KSM acquitted, because of racism, and then the terrorist is set free, to become some sort of golf-course-haunting pariah.

Presumably, he'll get Judith Regan fired again from Harper Collins and will only end up in jail at last after he tries to jack some guy in Vegas in an effort to get back some of his terrorist memorabilia. Maybe there will even be a cross-country Ford Bronco chase, with Falcon Heene! If this scenario develops, I promise to liveblog the whole thing, after which I will surely win all the Pulitzers.

But! Is it at all plausible to suggest that KSM is going to come away from his upcoming trial acquitted on these charges, to walk among us as a free man? As it turns out, no! Or, as Adam Serwer of the American Prospect puts it, "No. Not Ever." That's because the "same legal rationale that could have been used to hold him indefinitely will be used to hold him in case of an acquittal." And beyond that, there are further options:

"They have three sources of authority that would allow him to detain [KSM], one of which is the [Authorization to Use Military Force], because it directly cites the 9/11 attacks in its language -- the people who planned the 9/11 attacks are combatants and are detainable under the AUMF," explains Ken Gude, a human-rights expert at the Center for American Progress. "Under the .000001 chance that they are acquitted, they will have that authority to detain them."

The attorney general could detain him as an "international terrorist" indefinitely, in renewable six-month periods, based on a provision in the PATRIOT Act. And if things really get desperate, they could detain him as someone who is in the United States illegally, pending deportation. Since no country is going to take a mass murdering terrorist, that detention will essentially be indefinite.

On the prospect of KSM being released, Gude shrugs, "It isn't even in the realm of possibility."

Of course, Serwer is correct to point out the dark side to all of this: "That may make some of us feel safer, but it's also part of the reason why the ACLU's Jonathan Hafetz argues that U.S. detention policy is 'essentially lawless.'"

But look: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is not going to be the next O.J., he's not going to get acquitted and end up starting a new life working for some Brooklyn food co-op, and he's not going to be toddling down to Mexico to start a new life running chartered fishing trips with Andy Dufresne. So, Chuck Grassley should feel free to shut up and stop pretending otherwise.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Sessions, Giuliani Backed Trying Moussaoui In Fed Court, Other GOPers Praised Outcome

2009-11-18T14:17:35Z

Addressing the Department of Justice's decision to try terrorist suspects in civilian court rather than a military tribunal, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), on Wednesday, called the move unprecedented and indefensible.

Only, it's happened before, and Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, once defended it.

Back in 2002, when the Bush Department of Justice put Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th 9/11 hijacker, on trial in a federal court in northern Virginia, the Alabama Republican was willing to grant presidential deference.

"[The White House] probably thought it might be good to try this one in public," Sessions said, according to a Lexis-Nexis transcript of a January 2, 2002, Gannett News Service article.

Sessions, who the news service described as backing Bush's decision, noted that the hearings would come with additional hurdles. "Jurors will have to be sequestered and taken back and forth to court in armed motorcades," he said. "Jurors will probably have to be provided protection after the verdict." He also made it clear that if the decision were left to him, he would have opted for the military tribunals. "I hope they thought this through and don't expose intelligence techniques," he said.

But he was far more lenient and forgiving of Bush than he has been towards the Obama administration for choosing the same judicial path. On Wednesday, the Alabama Republican told Fox News that Attorney General Eric Holder's current decision was "really not a defensible position."

"It represents a historic change in how we treat those who are at war with the United States," he said. "It is going to create a lot of complications once we are at trial."

Sessions isn't the only one whistling a harsher tune now than he did nearly eight years ago. Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, who has been dispatched by the Republican Party this past week to savage the Obama White House for its decision, insisted that putting detainees like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed on trial would give "an unnecessary advantage... to the terrorists."

Interviewed after the Moussaoui trial, however, Giuliani insisted that the verdict (no death penalty but six consecutive life terms with no possibly of parole) said "something pretty remarkable" about the American people and legal system.

"I could tell that these jurors were very emotionally affected by this as I was when we went through all of the events," he said. "And yet they were able to come to what they regarded as a rational judgment. It has to say something about what America is like. And even though I am disappointed that they didn't reach the death penalty result, I would have preferred that, I have great respect for what they did here."

There were other Republicans, as well, who praised the Moussaoui case as exemplary of the United States government's commitment to open and fair judicial hearings. Former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said that the verdict was "a small but important piece of justice" that provided "proof that our society is grounded in the liberating power of justice and the rule of law, which are our most valuable weapons in the war on terror."

Both Frist and Giuliani would likely insist that a military tribunal would have achieved the same results for Moussaoui with less of an accompanying circus atmosphere and fewer possibilities of intelligence being publicized or compromised. Also, the admission that Mohammed was waterboarded while in custody presents various complications for the current DOJ -- mainly, the possibility that he will turn the hearing into a referendum on the use of torture.

But Holder has insisted that he has enough evidence to get a guilty verdict from Mohammed without risking the revelation of embarrassing information from his detention. And, in this regard, his position reflects not a radical departure from tradition -- as Sessions suggests -- but a similar thread of legal thinking to one of his predecessors: former Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Rachel Maddow, Frank Schaeffer Discuss The Latest In Thinly-Veiled Evangelical Christian Obama Death Threats

2009-11-18T14:03:00Z

Apparently, the latest thing in "Debasing The Institutions You Pretend To Hold Dear In Order To Suggest That President Barack Obama Should Be Murdered Without Actually Coming Right Out And Saying So" goes by a shorter name: Psalm 109:8.

And Psalm 109:8 is just straight up memetastic, appearing on bumper stickers and T-shirts, all of which carry the benign sounding message, "Pray For Obama." But, as Gawker's John Cook points out, this is just one more in a "long line of cheekily coded Obama death threats." The verse in question reads: "May his days be few; may another take his place of leadership." That leads fairly naturally into the Psalm 109:9, "May his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow." You know, in case you miss the point.

Rachel Maddow took up this issue last night, inviting Patience With God author and Huffington Post blogger Frank Schaeffer to explain whether or not the citation of this Biblical text "means something less threatening to people hearing this in a Biblical context."

SCHAEFFER: No. Actually, it means something more threatening. I think that the situation that I find genuinely frightening right now is that you have a ramping up of Biblical language, language from the anti-abortion movement for instance, death panels and this sort of thing, and what it's coalescing into is branding Obama as Hitler, as they have already called him. And something foreign to our shores, we're reminded of that, he's born in Kenya. As brown, as black, above all, as not us. He is Sarah Palin's "not a real American." But now, it turns out, he joins the ranks of the unjust kings of ancient Israel, unjust rulers to which all these Biblical allusions are directed who should be slaughtered, if not by God, then by just men. So there's a parallel here with Timothy McVeigh's t-shirt on the day of the Oklahoma City bombing. He said the tree of liberty had to be watered by the blood of tyrants. That quote, we saw at a meeting where Obama was present carried on a placard by someone with a loaded weapon.

What we're looking at right now is two things going on. We see the evangelical groups I talked about in my new book, Patience With God, enthralled by an apocalyptic vision that I go into in some detail there. They represent the millions of people who have turned the Left Behind series into best sellers. Most of them are not crazy, they're just deluded. But there is a crazy fringe to whom all these little messages that have been pouring out of Fox News, now on a bumper sticker, talking about doing away with Obama, asking God to kill him. Really, this is trolling for assassins. This is serious business.

It's un-American. It's unpatriotic. And it goes to show that the religious right, the Republican far right have coalesced into a group who truly want American revolution. If it turns out to be blood in the streets and death, so be it. It's not funny stuff anymore. They cannot be dismissed as just crazies on the fringe. It only takes one. You know, look at the Boston Globe article from a few weeks ago that says the threat level faced by the Secret Service has gone up 400%, higher than any other time in 52 years, for any president, Democrat or Republican. These are no jokes.

Schaeffer added, "Look, this is the American version of the Taliban... this is the Old Testament Biblical equivalent of calling for holy war."

WATCH:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]