On Monday, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) introduced 35 articles of impeachment against President Bush. Today, a spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) dismissed the call for impeachment as the efforts of “left-wing bloggers“:
This is just another example of the Democratic leadership in the House indulging trivial and silly conspiracy theories from left-wing bloggers, rather than working with Republicans to deal with the real issues facing the American people.
But impeachment is more popular than Boehner would like to admit. A July 2007 poll found that 46 percent of voters in favor beginning impeachment proceedings against President Bush. Furthermore, a 2005 poll said 42 percent of voters say that “if it is found that President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should hold him accountable through impeachment.”
The AP reports that in a 251-166 vote, “House members dispatched the measure to a committee on Wednesday – a procedure often used to kill legislation.”
At Gristmill, economist Peter Barnes hails the demise of the Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade bill as an opportunity to propose his favored alternative:
A revenue-neutral cap would cover all carbon entering the economy, auction all permits, and return the proceeds to every American equally, ideally as monthly dividends.
I agree wholeheartedly that all greenhouse emissions permits should be auctioned, but Barnes is wrong when he advocates that all proceeds should then be cut as rebates (or “dividends”) to American taxpayers. As the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities has found, reserving just 14 percent of all proceeds for direct rebates can fully protect low-income Americans from potential costs. By contrast, Barnes’s cap-and-rebate proposal — which he’s variously sold as “cap-and-recycle,” “cap-and-dividend,” and “Sky Trust” — is founded on the libertarian belief that government shouldn’t be trusted with any money. As he’s written:
If you assume the atmosphere belongs to government, then cap-and-auction is your choice. If you assume the atmosphere is a gift to everyone, then cap-and-recycle follows.
Creating the green economy that breaks our addiction to fossil fuels and solves global warming requires investment at all levels of community — local, state, federal, and global. Barnes’s proposal is bad politics and bad policy. Read the Center for American Progress report, Investing in a Green Economy, for a better way.
In an interview he gave to the Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes in 2006 for Hayes’s biography, “Cheney: The Untold Story of America’s Most Powerful and Controversial Vice President,” McCain said: “I will strongly assert to you that he has been of enormous help to this president of the United States.”
Going further, McCain even told Hayes in comments heretofore unpublished that he’d consider Cheney for an administration post.
Asked whether he’d be interested in Cheney had the vice president not already have served under Bush for two terms, McCain said: “I don’t know if I would want him as vice president. He and I have the same strengths. But to serve in other capacities? Hell, yeah.”
McCain’s just a guy who wants to continue most of Bush’s policies and admires Bush’s key henchmen and wants to keep them serving in government office. But that doesn’t mean he represents more of the same. It’s just a different kind of change — hell yeah!
Iraqi opposition to this bill is growing so intense that Iraqi parliament member Nadeem al-Jaberi recently testified to the House that 70 percent of Iraqis are in favor of the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Some more voices of opposition from prominent Iraqi officials:
“The Americans are making demands that would lead to the colonization of Iraq.” — Sami al-Askari, a senior Shiite politician on parliament’s foreign relations committee who is close to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki
“We rejected the whole thing from the beginning. In my point of view, it would just be a new occupation with an Iraqi signature.” — Jalal al-Din al-Saghir, a senior lawmaker from the Supreme Council
“What the U.S. wants is to take the current status quo and try to regulate it in a new agreement. … Signing the agreement would mean that the Iraqi government had given up its sovereignty by its own consent. And that will never happen.” — Haider al-Abadi, a parliament member from Maliki’s Dawa party
This is all very bad news…unless you’re a member of the Bush administration or one of its close allies. In a McCain campaign conference call today, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) told reporters that this opposition was actually a sign of the Bush administration’s “success” in the war:
The second thing I’d say is the very fact that we’re at a point where the Iraqi leadership wants to negotiate this agreement is a sign of our success in Iraq, which is that Iraq now has a sovereign, independent, self-government.
Listen here (at approximately 11:45):
This talking point is quickly making the rounds. Today, President Bush also said this opposition shows that Iraq is a “vibrant democracy” because “people are debating.” White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said it was a “very positive thing” that Iraqis were “using politics and the press as a way to get their message out.”
No matter what happens in Iraq, it’s always good news to the Bush administration and the McCain campaign.
This morning an all too familiar pattern was underscored when a hearing on a topic our Republican colleagues did not like was cut short, without warning, by an anonymous Republican objection. … I share the sentiments Senator Whitehouse expressed before recessing the hearing — this behavior is a disgrace to the Senate, and it is especially shameful given that the victims who traveled a long way to tell their stories to the Committee did not get a full hearing.
By Climate Guest Blogger on Jun 11, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Another continuation of the “It’s Easy Being Green” series from the Center for American Progress:
Good news: Anyone looking for more environmentally responsible options now has choices. Green alternatives are turning up all over these days–from children’s toys to weddings.
Families concerned with all the reports in the last year of toys tainted with lead paint will be happy to hear there’s a new market for toys that bypass lead and other potentially harmful chemicals completely.
Branch, a San Francisco-based sustainable design company, makes children’s toys out of natural wool and bamboo. Nest and ChildTrek are similar companies offering natural toys made out of wood and other sustainable materials. Sensing the growing consumer demand, even Toys ‘R’ Us has “gone green,” launching a new line of natural wood toys and dolls.
McCainblogger Mike Goldfarb complains that criticisms of McCain’s “not too important when the troops come home” gaffe lack context.
Okay, here’s the complete exchange from the Today show:
MATT LAUER: If it [the surge] is working, do you now have a better estimate of when American forces can come home from Iraq?
MCCAIN: No, but that’s not too important. What’s important is the casualties in Iraq. Americans are in South Korea, Americans are in Japan, American troops are in Germany, that’s all fine. American casualties, and the ability to withdraw. We will be able to withdraw, General Petraeus is going to tell us in July when he thinks we are, but the key to it is that we don’t want any more Americans in harm’s way, and that way they will be safe, and serve our country, and come home with honor, in victory, not in defeat, which is what Senator Obama’s proposal would have done. And I’m proud of them, and they’re doing a great job, and we are succeeding, and it’s fascinating that Senator Obama still doesn’t realize that.
Honestly, I don’t think it’s the lack of context that’s got Goldfarb upset, I think it’s that people are no longer choosing to interpret McCain’s incoherent answers in the most charitable way possible.
And, as always, left out of any of McCain’s various formulae for how long the American military should remain in Iraq is any serious consideration of what the Iraqi people themselves think about how long the American military should remain in Iraq. A number of stories over the past few weeks, including an excellent one in this morning’s Washington Post strongly indicate that they’re just not that into it.
Along with more personnel, our military needs additional equipment in order to make up for its recent losses and modernize. We can partially offset some of this additional investment by cutting wasteful spending. But we can also afford to spend more on national defense, which currently consumes less than four cents of every dollar that our economy generates — far less than what we spent during the Cold War. We must also accelerate the transformation of our military, which is still configured to fight enemies that no longer exist.
So on the one hand, defense cuts will pay for tax cuts. But on the other hand, we need to substantial increase defense spending as a share of GDP to something more like Cold War levels.
Labor union officials and some liberal activists were seething Tuesday over Barack Obama’s choice of centrist economist Jason Furman as the top economic advisor for the campaign. The critics say Furman, who was appointed to the post Monday, has overstated the potential benefits of globalization, Social Security private accounts and the low prices offered by Wal-Mart — considered a corporate pariah by the labor movement.
Furman has definitely taken stances on Wal-Mart and trade policy that are at odds with what “labor union officials and some liberal activists” tend to want to hear (I do, too). But what I remember from the Social Security fight was that there were a number of wonks who anti-privatization journalists and activists were leaning heavily on to beat back the tide of pressure from the White House and the press. I require Furman as having been one of the very most effective such wonks. Here’s one example of many. I’m not sure exactly what the LA Times is referring to, but anyone who thinks Furman was or is a supporter of Bush’s privatization plan is badly mistaken.
John McCain, on the other hand, is a person like that and yet somehow I haven’t seen any press coverage of his plan to destroy America’s largest and most popular domestic program.