Search Results for: ’

George Friedman at Stratfor, a publication by current and retired intelligence officials, lays out the stark reality of what’s happening in Mexico right now, warning of that country’s potential to become a failed state. The root of the crisis is the growing influence of the cartels who operate an approximately $40 billion a year industry in illegal drugs, nearly all of which is consumed in the United States. Friedman sees a possibility that the cartels, who already dominate most of northern Mexico, could soon become powerful enough to usurp the power of the elected government in Mexico City as well.

The recent violence from Mexico has been staggering. Over a thousand people, including hundreds of police, have already been killed this year in fighting between federal officials and the cartels. The cartels operate with such impunity in parts of the country that they’re able to publicly advertise for recruits. Some Mexican police officers in the border region are even attempting to flee to the United States.

Friedman makes the appropriate comparison to 1920s alcohol prohibition, reminding us that during that time, the city of Chicago had a failed government. And had Al Capone and his men become powerful enough to defeat the federal agents, America could have become a failed state. Thankfully, America only allowed its doomed experiment in alcohol prohibition to last for just over a decade. Our current prohibition, however, has been going on for several decades now and has turned all of Mexico into an even more extreme version of 1920s Chicago with modern weapons.

Occasionally, we see some intelligent discussion of this growing problem in the traditional media (like this column from Neal Peirce in the Seattle Times last week). But in the political realm, there are no solutions on the horizon. The only thing being proposed is the Merida Initiative, a laughable effort to provide Mexico with $1.4 billion that the Mexican government might even turn down because of the strings attached.

I’m sure that much will be made over the disagreements between the Democrats and the Republicans in Congress over the Merida Initiative, but neither party has the political courage to do what Friedman explains is the only realistic solution:

One way to deal with the problem would be ending the artificial price of drugs by legalizing them. This would rapidly lower the price of drugs and vastly reduce the money to be made in smuggling them. Nothing hurt the American cartels more than the repeal of Prohibition, and nothing helped them more than Prohibition itself. Nevertheless, from an objective point of view, drug legalization isn’t going to happen. There is no visible political coalition of substantial size advocating this solution. Therefore, U.S. drug policy will continue to raise the price of drugs artificially, effective interdiction will be impossible, and the Mexican cartels will prosper and make war on each other and on the Mexican state.

I’ve been asked recently why I focus so much on the topic of drug policy when most of the country still considers it a political minefield. It’s because even though it’s a political minefield, that doesn’t mean it’s any less urgent to fix. Our current approach to dealing with the drug trade in Mexico is piñata policy, put on a blindfold and swing a big stick hoping that you hit something and a bunch of candy falls out. Many people think that we can do this forever, just pretending that it’s the best way while allowing us to keep from breaking free from the drug war mindset. They’re wrong. And the damage in Mexico (not to mention Afghanistan, Colombia, and in our inner cities) is the proof that they’re wrong. The millions of refugees from this war who have already fled to the United States from Mexico should be a good indication of that.

This country needs to develop a viable constituency that demands from the next American administration that we start dismantling the international drug war and to deal with the problem of drug addiction in a way that doesn’t bring a country of 100 million people to the verge of becoming a failed state. Yeah, I talk about the drug war a lot. I do it because we can’t afford not to any more.

[h/t to Transform for the link]

Gov. Christine Gregoire comments on Obama’s apparent victory:

We have just witnessed an historic primary season where ideas and ideals rose to the forefront of the debate in our country. The candidates and voters should all be commended. Now it’s time we all stand together and unite behind our Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. Barack Obama.

Many years ago, I was inspired by a man who offered a similar message of hope and belief as Barack Obama does today. Then, it was John F. Kennedy, a man whose words and actions led to my career in public service. Today, I feel similarly toward Sen. Obama. He offers this country a vision of positive change and leadership we can stand behind.

Our country is about its people, and for the last eight years we’ve been divided and moving in the wrong direction at home and abroad. It’s time to stand proud and take back this country. Sen. Barack Obama is the right person to lead us.

We need a partner in the other Washington that believes it is our responsibility to provide healthcare to children, fund a world-class education system and fight global climate change. While we’ve gotten results for families in our state over the last four years, imagine even greater possibilities with the barriers down and a partner in place in our nation’s capitol.

It’s time to renew our country’s economy. It’s time our nation recommits to every working man and woman. It’s time for good quality, affordable, accessible health care. It’s time that we tell every child to dream as big as they possibly can, and that dreams really can come true. It’s time to eliminate hopelessness and poverty and give the great people of this nation a vision worth believing in.

Indeed…to me, this vision is like a breath of fresh air—a beam of sunlight breaking through—after 7.5 years under a cloud of incompetence, immorality, deception, and scandal in the White House.

Unsaid in my critique of the Washington State Republican Party platform and its call to repeal the birthright citizenship provision of the 14th Amendment, is that their xenophobic, anti-immigration rhetoric is actually right in line with that of their national party leadership. Which I suppose explains why the RNC has named a charmer like Chris Gulugian-Taylor to head Washington State’s “Victory 2008” committee, the organization responsible for spending national party money on the statewide GOTV effort.

Guligian-Taylor was Rudy Giuliani’s regional political director for Western states (um… Giuliani had a Western states campaign?) and was the executive director of the Nevada Republican Party in 2006… before resigning his position in the midst of a mini-scandal, a month before election day.

It seems Chris Gulugian-Taylor sent out the announcement of a Minuteman rally (subject line: “Help stop the illegal invasion”) to the GOP’s e-mail list, complete with nasty little digs like this:

“If you are tired of seeing illegals catered to, then join us to send these Un-American corporations a message.

“We’ll not allow these illegals destroy our country. We’ll not permit corporations like Chicago Title, Wells Fargo Bank, and Miller Brewing promote [sic] and financially support the take over [sic] of America by the Illegal Invaders.

“Your voice is needed to let these Un-American companies know we will not tolerate them supporting illegals over law abiding citizens.”

Ouch, baby. That’s got to hurt, especially if your party is trying to appeal to Latino voters and not alienate them.

[…] Look, we don’t want to be dicks about this, but are you really surprised? Hell, we’re talking about the party that wanted to make felons out of illegal immigrants, and to declare (in contravention of the U.S. Constitution) that children born to illegal immigrants should not be U.S. citizens…

Yup, it sounds like the WSRP’s newest political guest worker is going to fit right in with the locals.

WA superdelegate David McDonald has endorsed Barack Obama. The end is nigh tomorrow.

UPDATE:
Here’s McDonald’s statement:

As you know, I serve on the Rules and Bylaws Committee of the Democratic National Committee.  Many months ago I made a personal choice to stay neutral as a super-delegate in the presidential nominating contest until the RBC had resolved all significant issues likely to come before it.  On Saturday the RBC resolved the last of those issues.  After a day of sightseeing in Washington DC, a long, cell-phone free plane ride home and some sleep, I have decided to cast my vote as a member of the Democratic National Committee for Senator Barack Obama.

The Democratic Party has been blessed this year with a century’s worth of great candidates for President.  This was not an easy choice.  Both of the candidates who remain in contention are capable of winning the general election and would likely do so if selected as the nominee.  The policy differences between them are relatively minor compared to the gulf between the Bush-McCain Republican team and the needs of the American people.  I cannot stress enough how proud I am to be associated with a political party that has brought to the forefront this incredible pair of final contenders.

It has been apparent to me over the months, however, that Senator Obama’s candidacy has brought astounding new energy and hope to the Democratic Party nationwide.  He has shown a remarkable ability to organize and mobilize Democratic voters and focus their efforts on the key task of persuading independent voters around the country to join us in changing the White House agenda.  His leadership provides, I believe, a unique opportunity to continue to expand this party, to continue our long term agenda of contesting—and converting—the “red” areas of the country, and to continue our task of making conditions better for Americans everywhere.  It is an opportunity that I want to help turn into a reality.

I couldn’t agree with him more.

Has the agonizing, prolonged battle between Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama helped or harmed the Democratic brand name? This has become a hot topic of debate at dinner tables, in bars, and in car pool across the nation. But mostly the debate has been fueled by a seemingly endless parade of political pundits.

One side—the pessimists—argue that irreparable harm has been caused by elevated rancor and even the use of Rovian tactics by the campaigns. The other side—the optimists—argue that the media attention, fanaticism, and fevered pace of campaigning ultimately benefits the Democrats.

I fall in the optimist camp, but I am always more comfortable having empirical verification of my opinion. And empirical evidence there is.

Every month, Rasmussen Reports releases a new partisan trends report based on monthly interviews of a huge number of people:

…the Democrats now have the largest partisan advantage over the Republicans since Rasmussen Reports began tracking this data on a monthly basis nearly six years ago.

During the month of April, 41.4% of Americans considered themselves to be Democrats. Just 31.4% said they were Republicans and 27.2% were not affiliated with either major party.

April was the third straight month that the number of Democrats topped 41%. Prior to February of this year, neither party had ever reached the 39% level of support.
[…]

The partisan gap now shows the Democrats with a 10.0 percentage point advantage over the Republicans. That’s the largest advantage ever recorded by either party. In fact, before these past three months, the previous high was a 6.9 point percentage point edge for the Democrats in December 2006.

Here is a graph showing how the trend in party affiliation has changed over time for the U.S.:

Republicans reached their peak numbers of 37.3% in September of 2004, and have been on a slow decline since.

Until about six months ago, the Democrats were holding steady at about 37% Democratic voter identity. The rise since December has been nothing short of stunning. Democrats had 36.3% identity in December and shot up to 41.5% in February—just about the time that the race started heating up.

The data don’t tell us what this increase is all about. (Although…the correlations among the groups suggest that a shift from “Other” identity to Democratic identity explains about 2/3 of the recent variation). No doubt non-primary things like ongoing Republican scandals, a tanking economy, a dragged-out occupation of Iraq, soaring fuel prices, and the fact that George Bush and Dick Cheney call themselves Republicans have helped swell the ranks of Democrats.

A cautious statement would be that any damage done by the primary contest is minor at worst, as the damage has been more than offset by the Republican collapse, resulting in a net gain for Democrats.

An alternative explanation is that the primary-from-hell really has been a good thing for Democrats.

As reported by Postman, all charges have been dropped against state Rep. Geoff Simpson, stemming from his arrest after an incident with his ex-wife. From the court order dismissing the charges:

Based on all of the information obtained in the present matter, the City no longer believes it has a sufficient evidence to go forward with the charges herein.  In regards to Count one, Assault in the Fourth Degree — DV, the City does not believe that there is sufficient evidence to prove that the conduct of the defendant was not legally justifiable.  Without the predicate domestic violence offense, the City is likewise unable to go forward with Count Two, Interfering with the Reporting of Domestic Violence.  In addition, based on the alleged victim’s stated intentions for calling 911 at the time of the incident, there is no evidence that the alleged victim was calling 911 to specifically report a domestic violence incident or that the defendant would have reason to believe that she was calling to report domestic violence.

Interestingly, Simpson tells Postman that despite his arrest and night in jail, he still supports the domestic violence laws that left police with little discretion but to detain and charge him:

“I’ve thought a lot about this the past several weeks. I don’t like what happened to me and I didn’t like going to jail with all the unpleasantness associated with that. But I think that’s better than the alternative.”

The alternative might be a victim denying abuse out of fear, only to be seriously injured or murdered after the police leave the scene. It is a complicated issue that certainly deserves more thought, but the current law is certainly better than the more hands-off approach to domestic disputes that used to prevail.

As for the political fallout, Simpson wrote in an email to supporters:

I am certain the Republican machine is gearing up with negative attacks, but the voters have rejected personal attack campaigns against me before and will see through them again.

No doubt. And I do think that in the absence of charges, such attacks might have been more effective had the GOP not used them in the previous campaign. Without a court case to keep this issue fresh, most voters will likely view the attack ads and mailers as old news. And that’s good news for Simpson.

In this week’s podcast, Goldy and panel lament the departure of Robert Mak and simmer over the end of local political TV. The heat is turned-up with a discussion over Sen. Hillary Clinton and the never-ending Democratic nomination process. Things come to a full boil during a discussion of assisted suicide. (No pundits were harmed in the production of this podcast.)

Goldy was joined by our Seattle Drinking Liberally co-host Chris Mitchell, Seattle P-I columnist Joel Connelly, HorsesAss & EFFin’ Unsound’s Carl Ballard and HorsesAss, EFFin’ Unsound, & Blog Reload’s Lee.

The show is 40:49, and is available here as an MP3:

[audio:http://www.podcastingliberally.com/podcasts/podcasting_liberally_may_27_2008.mp3]

[Recorded live at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. Special thanks to creators Gavin and Richard for hosting the Podcasting Liberally site.]

Did Kentucky just seal the nomination for Obama? Then who should he pick as a running mate? What does Sen. Ed Murray (D-43 LD) really think about Rossi’s transportation plan fantasy? Is American democracy being poisoned by right-wing hate rhetoric? What’s the matter with the DNC’s 50-state Blogger Corps Program? Goldy and friends frolic in these questions and more, and then conclude with a sober discussion of Sen. Edward Kennedy.

Goldy was joined by a star-studded cast of political pundits: Washington state Senator Ed Murray, Seattle P-I columnist Joel Connelly, DailyKos uber-blogger mcjoan, author of Outright Barbarous: How the Violent Language of the Right Poisons American Democracy, anthropologist, and blogger Jeffrey Feldman, Firedoglake front page editor Dave Neiwert, and EFFin’ Unsound’s Carl Ballard.

The show is 56:14, and is available here as an MP3.

[audio:http://www.podcastingliberally.com/podcasts/podcasting_liberally_may_20_2008.mp3]

[Recorded live at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. Special thanks to creators Gavin and Richard for hosting the site.]

And keep in mind that Rasmussen is widely considered to be a Republican leaning pollster:

The re-election prospects for Washington Governor Christine Gregoire (D) have improved significantly over the past two months. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Washington voters shows Gregoire leading her Republican challenger, Dino Rossi, by eleven percentage points. It’s Gregoire 52% Rossi 41%.

What’s changed?  Largely it appears that the Democratic base is coming home to Gregoire, as one might expect as the election approaches.  But I’ll leave further analysis to Darryl.

FYI, Rasmussen also has Barack Obama opening up an 11-point lead over John McCain amongst WA voters.  Coincidence?

The Tri-City Herald’s Chris Mullick was rummaging online when he came across the state House Republican Organizational Committee’s new website.

It looks pretty sharp. It’s a bit more colorful than the previous version. It’s got a nice photo of House Minority Leader Richard DeBolt, R-Chehalis, with his family. He’s looking all everymanish in blue jeans and polo shirt. The dog is a nice touch.

And if you look to the right you’ll note a fundraising target they’ve set of $35,000 by September. To date, they’ve raised $40.34 and they’re pretty excited about it.

“0% received!” it reads just above the mostly vacant bar chart.

And, it’s interesting to note that at least half HROC’s contributors are HA regulars. And who says this blog isn’t a fount of bipartisanship?

Was yesterday’s election a “game changer?” (No…not that one…the one in Mississippi-1, won by Childers.) And what are the implications for Dave Reichert and Doc Hastings? So…let’s say you attend a $33,100 per plate fundraiser. What kind of meal would you expect, and how should it be served? Goldy offers some disturbing possibilities. In any case, is John McCain violating the letter, or just the spirit, of the McCain—Feingold law? Who is to blame for Central Washington losing its nuclear waste to Idaho? Goldy and friends ask the tough questions so that you don’t have to…put down your beer to ask ‘em yourself.

Goldy was joined in political merriment by McCranium’s Jim McCabe, Executive Director of the Northwest Progressive Institute Andrew Villeneuve, Seattle P-I columnist Joel Connelly, and EFFin’ Unsound’s Carl Ballard (in the role of Goldy’s Ed McMahon).

The show is 47:08, and is available here as an MP3.

[audio:http://www.podcastingliberally.com/podcasts/podcasting_liberally_may_13_2008.mp3]

[Recorded live at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. Special thanks to creators Gavin and Richard for hosting the site.]

Note to Republicans: be afraid. Be very afraid.

When Democrats won a special election in March for former Speaker Dennis Hastert’s seat, an R+6 district the GOP had held for three decades, it was cause for a celebratory fuck you to Republicans who only four years ago taunted D’s with talk of a “permanent majority.” Last week, when the Dems picked up yet another blood-red seat, this time an R+8 Louisiana district the GOP had owned since 1974, Beltway Republicans appeared to turn on each other. But after last night’s Democratic pickup in Mississippi, it looks like the House Republican Caucus may be headed into every man for himself mode.

MS-01, where Democrat Travis Childers just beat Republican Greg Davis 52% to 48%, is an R+10 district that President Bush won with 62% of the vote in 2004, and the former incumbent won with 66% just a year and a half ago. And that’s after the cash-strapped NRCC sunk $1.3 million into the race on top of another million from Freedom Watch and the candidate himself.

The tried and true GOP tactics of race-baiting and fear-mongering just don’t seem to be working this cycle. The R’s saturated the media with the ads tying Childers to Barack Obama and Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and yet the Democrat only increased his support since the previous round of voting a few weeks back. Running on a “get out of Iraq” message in a traditionally pro-military Deep South district, Childers earned a comfortable win over a credible and well-funded opponent.

This is what happens when a bitter electorate turns out in record numbers to say enough is enough. If Dems can win in an R+10 district they can win anywhere, a sentiment loudly expressed this morning in The Hill:

The sky is falling on House Republicans and there is no sign of it letting up.

The GOP loss in Mississippi’s special election Tuesday is the strongest sign yet that the Republican Party is in shambles. And while some Republicans see a light at the end of the tunnel, that light more likely represents the Democratic train that is primed to mow down more Republicans in November.

Be afraid, my Republican friends. Be very afraid.

UPDATE [LEE]: I thought I’d link to this quote from Paul Begala in 2006 about Howard Dean’s 50 state strategy since it’s appropriate:

“Yes, he’s in trouble, in that campaign managers, candidates, are really angry with him. He has raised $74 million and spent $64 million. He says it’s a long-term strategy. But what he has spent it on, apparently, is just hiring a bunch of staff people to wander around Utah and Mississippi and pick their nose. That’s not how you build a party. You win elections. That’s how you build a party.”

Last month, George Bush showed that he can reach for newer and greater heights when he broke the Gallup poll record for highest disapproval ever recorded for a president over the last 70 years.

The records keep rolling in…but, this month, Bush is an equal opportunity record-breaker. He has reached a new high and sunk to new lows for May:

The month started out with a new high (my emphasis throughout):

A new poll suggests that George W. Bush is the most unpopular president in modern American history.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Thursday indicates that 71 percent of the American public disapprove of how Bush his handling his job as president.

“No president has ever had a higher disapproval rating in any CNN or Gallup poll; in fact, this is the first time that any president’s disapproval rating has cracked the 70 percent mark,” said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

“Bush’s approval rating, which stands at 28 percent in our new poll, remains better than the all-time lows set by Harry Truman and Richard Nixon (22 percent and 24 percent, respectively) but even those two presidents never got a disapproval rating in the 70s,” Holland added. “The previous all-time record in CNN or Gallup polling was set by Truman, 66 percent disapproval in January 1952.”

Bush shows that he has also mastered the lows on Sunday when Rassmussen Reports gave their weekly and monthly approval/disapproval summaries:

For the week ending May 9, just 32% of Americans approved of the way the George W. Bush performed his role as President. That’s down two percentage points from last week and the lowest level ever recorded by Rasmussen Reports. The decline in the President’s ratings come as the Rasmussen Consumer Index also hovers around record lows—72% of Americans believe that economic conditions are getting worse.

Sixty-five percent (65%) disapprove of the President’s Performance, up two points from a week ago.
[…]

The weekly figures also represents a two-point decline from the numbers recorded during the full month of April. During that month, 34% of Americans gave the President their approval. That too was an all-time low, the lowest full-month approval rating ever for the President measured by Rasmussen Reports.
[…]

Prior to this month, the President’s lowest approval rating was 35%, recorded in June, 2007. In two other months, his approval has been as low as 36% (May 2007 and March 2008).

And just yesterday, a new low from a new ABC/Washington Post poll:

Public disgruntlement neared a record high and George W. Bush slipped to his career low in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll. Eighty-two percent of Americans now say the country’s seriously off on the wrong track, up 10 points in the past year to a point from its record high in polls since 1973. And just 31 percent approve of Bush’s job performance overall, while 66 percent disapprove.

The country’s mood – and the president’s ratings – are suffering from the double whammy of an unpopular war and a faltering economy. Consistently for the past year, nearly two-thirds of Americans have said the war in Iraq was not worth fighting. And consumer confidence is near its lowest in weekly ABC News polls since late 1985.

Bush’s approval rating has been extraordinarily stable – before today’s 31 percent it had
been 32 or 33 percent in nine ABC/Post polls from last July through last month.

Whew…and that is just the last couple of weeks!

As this election season geared up, we heard a lot of wishful thinking on the part of Righties suggesting that 2006 was the one and only opportunity for Democrats to make significant gains. In part the rationale seemed to be that candidates wouldn’t have a Bush administration to drag ’em down. Maybe…but there has been an avalanche of bad omens for Republicans lately: Bush’s new records, congressional special elections going Democratic in previously strong Republican districts, record high Democratic identity, and unprecedented fundraising asymmetries in favor of the Democrats.

Isn’t it time to reevaluate these Republican loyalists? I mean, when does the pattern of self-deception and delusions qualify as psychopathology?