Officials in Ned Lamont’s U.S. Senate campaign said today they expect to file complaints with both federal and state authorities concerning $387,000 in “petty cash” U.S. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman spent before the Democratic primary election.
George C. Jepsen, a former state Senate majority leader and Democratic state chairman who chairs Lamont’s campaign, said the complaints would allege violations of the federal campaign finance law and state labor laws.
$387,000 “is just unprecedented in its scope,” he said, referring to the money the Lamont campaign has characterized as a Lieberman “slush fund.”
“We’re not alleging that any Lieberman staffer knowingly broke the law, but who is naïve enough to think you can put north of $387,000 on the street in a very compacted period of time and not have some level of abuse?” Jepsen asked.
“Petty cash is supposed to be used for pizza for volunteers and paper clips,” he continued. “It’s not intended to fund a massive field operation. “This is a throwback to a generation ago when ’street money’ was completely unregulated and widely abused, so at a minimum by law they’re supposed to keep detailed records of who was paid and how much, and make those records public.
“If you’re doing it right and by the book, so that it’s 100 percent legal, you would be cutting roughly 6,000 individual checks and keeping track of the money,” Jepsen added.
I was at the Lieberman rally when Lindsay took the picture she’s got posted here. I asked the kid on the left why he liked Joe Lieberman so much. He shrugged and looked away and said, without much conviction, “I just like him.” I didn’t push him any further, it felt too mean.
I’ve read so many “Republicans are in trouble” articles that they’re starting to take on an almost jazz-like quality. Journalists, bloggers, and pundits are riffing on poll numbers and conventional wisdom the way musicians improvise on a melody. There’s so many familiar themes being weaved together like Foley, Abramoff, Iraq, and Katrina that you’d think it would get repetitive after a while, but I gotta admit that it’s a pretty damn catchy tune.
But, it’s sad when a major media outlet like Newsweek is consumed with playing the same song that they end up burying a lede like this (via Digg):
Other parts of a potential Democratic agenda receive less support, especially calls to impeach Bush: 47 percent of Democrats say that should be a “top priority,” but only 28 percent of all Americans say it should be, 23 percent say it should be a lower priority and nearly half, 44 percent, say it should not be done. (Five percent of Republicans say it should be a top priority and 15 percent of Republicans say it should be a lower priority; 78 percent oppose impeachment.) Rolling back some of the Bush tax cuts would be contentious too: 38 percent of Americans say the Dems should make that a top priority; 28 percent say it should be a lower priority; and 28 percent say it shouldn’t be done at all.
Now wait a second…doesn’t 28% plus 23% equal 51%? I’d think that a poll showing the majority of Americans favor impeaching the President would be pretty newsworthy, especially considering that this far exceeds the numbers of a President that actually was impeached. If the majorities favoring impeachment and repealing Bush’s tax cuts is how Newsweek defines “less support”, then the GOP is in a lot more trouble that I thought. I still can’t bring myself to start celebrating before the polls even open, but it’s nice to hear.
Harris has been, among other things, a stand-up comic, and it shows in his book, in lively phrases and an ear for the incongruous…He is a skilled storyteller, and the play-by-play he provides for his various matches pulls you in like a good sports story.
The one strange thing is the reviewer is disappointed that, as presented in Trebekistan and Ken Jennings’ book (reviewed at the same time), “Trebek and his staff are without flaw.” Bob makes it clear contestants can’t say much about the people running Jeopardy! because they barely meet them. There are actual reasons for this; i.e., to prevent accusations of collusion and fraud. It would be a problem for the show if during his winning streak Jennings had been going on luxurious Mediterranean cruises with Trebek and the people who write the clues.
If Republicans didn’t care about stem cell research after the Gipper’s wife and son begged them to support it, they certainly aren’t going to care now. It would be nice if they were as concerned about saving the lives of human beings as they are about saving frozen embryos, but that’s the way things go with the GOP. They’re obsessed with protecting “life”, but curiously only define the term in abstract ways that benefit them politically. Gosh, it must be nice to take the moral high-ground all the time.
Just in case you’re one of those readers whose eyes automatically skip over the announcements space above, I want to point out the poster I’ve got up on eBay at the moment. Also, while I know it’s pretty early to start thinking about these things, I want to emphasize that I won’t be taking any signed print orders from Dec. 7 through Jan. 6, just to make sure that I can get holiday orders shipped out in time. If you want to order one as a gift, please be sure to plan ahead. Unlikely, I know, since we secular progressives hate Christmas and everything associated with it, but I thought I’d mention it anyway.
One other thing: after New Year’s, I’m going to do some housecleaning in the store and get rid of a lot of the older designs. So if there’s something in there you want, order it soon.
[T]he use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear.
This is not secret. This is not difficult to find out. It is extremely public and extremely clear: torture does not work.
It is also counterproductive in terribly obvious ways. False information will be produced, wasting vast amounts of time and resources. Torture also radicalizes people, creating even more enemies. It will unavoidably be used against people with no information (remember, most prisoners in Iraq were found to have been arrested by mistake); and the use of torture obliterates any future claim to moral credibility.
Not to pretend that moral arguments ever work, but also: torturing another human being is wrong. Period. If you’re a Christian, as the saying goes: what would Jesus do? I’m no expert, but my guess he probably would not hold a blowtorch to anyone’s genitals, no matter how many episodes of 24 you’ve seen. Either you believe your damn religion or you don’t.
I bring up the torture thing today because of this new BBC survey on attitudes toward torture in 25 countries around the world. About 27,000 people were asked if they (a) opposed all use of torture, (b) would consent to the use of torture “if it may gain information that saves innocent lives,” or (c) had no clue.
Given the vividly public position of experts in the field and the absolute unambiguity of every major religion on the topic, the question really amounts to little more than asking if you’re (a) well-informed, decent, and sane, (b) willing to compromise your morals on a false premise, or (c) unable to distinguish between the two.
I won’t flood TMW with page-filling graphics, but over at BobHarris.com, I’ve posted the results by country, rearranging the BBC post to show the results in both descending order of basic goddam human decency, using the “against all torture” position as the index, and in descending order of moral and pragmatic incompetence, using the “I’m frightened, amoral, and woefully uninformed” position as the index.
There’s actually a great deal of good news. For one, in not one country on earth was acceptance of torture is the majority position. Even people in active war zones don’t seem to lose their bearings that badly. And here in the U.S., even after 9/11 and the steady drumbeat of pro-torture crap from the lunatic right, Americans still oppose torture by a wide margin, roughly near the global average.
So human beings really don’t like to cause deep psychological wounds to themselves and others. Say. These days, that’s encouraging.
The second debate Wednesday in the U.S. Senate race broadened to five candidates, with Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman the target for his support of the Iraq war, Connecticut’s dwindling share of homeland security funds and America’s continuing dependence on foreign oil.
* * *
Unlike the first debate, much of this forum was devoted to the war, national security and dealing with Iran and North Korea.
* * *
Lieberman said he did not want to “dishonor” the sacrifices of American soldiers in Iraq by pulling out before the country is stabilized. Lamont said keeping troops there exacerbates the insurgency, and he would bring most of them home in a year to 18 months as an incentive for Iraq to solve its political problems.
* * *
Lieberman took a hit for the drop in homeland security money for Connecticut to $15 million, the lowest in New England on a per capita basis.
“Sen. Lieberman’s tenure on the Homeland Security Committee has not brought back results for the state of Connecticut,” Lamont said.
And for a little comic relief:
Lieberman’s campaign manager, Sherry Brown, said the debate showed the senator is being attacked from the left and the right and he is therefore the only one who can bring the country together.
For someone in my shoes, though, hopelessness can become an excuse for not thinking about unpleasant truths. But there was something about Riverbend’s quiet despair that forced me to think hard about my own moral responsibility as an American for a genocide caused by America — because of a war started in my name, paid for with my taxes.
I’ve opposed this war since it was just a malignant smirk on George Bush’s face. I’ve spoken against it, written against it, marched against it, supported and contributed to politicians I generally despise because I thought (wrongly) that they might do something to stop it. It’s why I took up blogging, why I started this blog.
But the question Riverbend has forced me to ask myself is: Did I do enough? And the only honest answer is no.
Embattled U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum said America has avoided a second terrorist attack for five years because the “Eye of Mordor” has been drawn to Iraq instead.
Santorum used the analogy from one of his favorite books, J.R.R. Tolkien’s 1950s fantasy classic “Lord of the Rings,” to put an increasingly unpopular war in Iraq into terms any school kid could easily understand.
“As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else,” Santorum said, describing the tool the evil Lord Sauron used in search of the magical ring that would consolidate his power over Middle-earth.
“It’s being drawn to Iraq and it’s not being drawn to the U.S.,” Santorum continued. “You know what? I want to keep it on Iraq. I don’t want the Eye to come back here to the United States.”
