Pres. Obama orders review of deportation policy

Washington Post: President Obama on Thursday ordered his administration to review its immigration policies to determine ways to make it more humane, a response to mounting pressure from advocates to stem deportations of illegal immigrants.

The move came after Obama met at the White House with three members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, which has been drafting a letter to the president expressing concerns about the administration’s deportation policy.

Obama “emphasized his deep concern about the pain too many families feel from the separation that comes from our broken immigration system,” the White House said in a statement after the president’s meeting with Democratic Reps. Ruben Hinojosa (Tex.), Xavier Becerra (Calif.) and Luis Gutierrez (Ill.).

The impetus behind the move was pressure from Latino groups and many on the left to halt — or at least slow — deportations. Pres. Obama, in a typical Democratic over-compensating “See? I can be just as tough as a Republican!” move, had been engaged in deportations at an alarming rate. But now that pressure has caused an apparent reboot of the President’s policy. This overcompensation also explains why Obama’s been going nuts with drones and surveillance.

This is an important story for two reasons, as I see it. First, but not foremost, is that we’re seeing another example of how demographic shifts in the population are driving our politics away from conservative positions. Republicans will hate this, but Democrats have a lot more to worry about from Latino voters than from the GOP. And it’s clear that the administration is less worried about scaring away swing voters than they are of Latino voters.

Second and more importantly, these shifts do not happen without pressure from the left. There was a vacuum here and Latino voters rushed in to fill it. Obama — and other moderate Democrats — can be pushed to the left without a whole lot of consequence, because that’s where the majority of the voters are. The political center is way to the right of middle America and there’s real no penalty for responding to mainstream demands. If we can convince Democrats to worry more about responding to the majority of voters and less about impressing Republicans, both the party and the country would be one helluva lot better off.

[photo by Fibonacci Blue]

Obama: ‘16 presidential race not as important right now as midterms

Reuters: President Barack Obama gently chided Democratic donors on Wednesday for paying too much attention to the next presidential race in 2016 and not enough attention to the upcoming midterm elections in 2014.

Reminding Democrats at a fundraiser in Boston that “we got whalloped” in the 2010 midterms, when Republicans took control of the U.S. House of Representatives, Obama warned that “it could happen again if we don’t fight on behalf of the things we care about in this election.”

“No one could be more invested than me in having a Democrat succeed me,” Obama told about 70 supporters at a dinner where tickets cost $5,000 to $20,000. But he stressed to Democrats they need to invest time, money and energy on the November midterms.

“In the midterms, Democrats too often don’t vote. Too often, when there’s not a presidential election, we don’t think it’s sexy, we don’t think it’s interesting, people tune out,” Obama said.

Of course, he’s right. Democrats’ biggest problem is turnout. The way things go right now, if there’s a Winter Olympics that year, Republicans do well; if there’s Summer Olympics, Democrats do well. For some reason, Democratic voters are much more likely to show up for the “big game” on leap year than at any other time.

If Democrats could convince voters that every game is the big game, Republicans would be wrecked in election after election. Republicans turn out much more consistently than Democrats; meaning that off-year elections go to Republicans by default, not by effort. Americans haven’t elected (as opposed to reelected) a Republican President since Bush senior (Bush junior lost the 2000 popular vote) — and even then, Bush the Elder was a quasi-incumbent as Reagan’s Vice President. Without the power of incumbency, Republicans are screwed in Presidential election years, because America as a whole is a blue state — that is, when the voters that make it a blue state bother to show up.

Democrats and liberals would be a lot better off letting 2016 take care of itself — they’re all but guaranteed a win, anyway — and take all that energy and put it into 2014. If Democrats could figure out how to replicate presidential year voting turn out, eventually there would be no Republican Party to speak of. They’d be a permanent minority in both houses of congress, in much the same way that they’re currently all but shut out of the White House.

Dems propose Darwin Day bill

The Hill: Three House Democrats have proposed a resolution that criticizes the teaching of creationism and the denial of man-made global warming as anti-science.

The resolution from Reps. Rush Holt (D-N.J.), Jim Himes (D-Conn.) and Mike Honda (D-Calif.), H.Res. 467, proposes the designation of Feb. 12 as “Darwin Day” to recognize Charles Darwin’s contributions to science.The resolution says Darwin’s theory of evolution through natural selection “provides humanity with a logical and intellectually compelling explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.” It also says teachings to the contrary go against established science.

“[T]he teaching of creationism in some public schools compromises the scientific and academic integrity of the United States education systems,” it reads. It adds that the validity of Darwin’s theory of natural selection is “strongly supported by the modern understanding of the science of genetics.”

The resolution also takes a shot at global warming skeptics, by saying the advancement of science “must be protected from those unconcerned with the adverse impacts of global warming and climate change.”

Bottom line, evolutionary biology is an applied science. Arguing against it is like standing next to a nuclear power plant and saying, “Oh yeah? Well if this so-called ‘nuclear power’ is so real, then why is it called the ‘theory of special relativity’?”

Of course, this bill is never going anywhere and it’s really just a way to tweak Republican anti-science, but if you can’t troll flatearthers on Darwin Day, where are you going to get your fun?

Goodbye Henry, hello Sandra?

When Henry Waxman announced his retirement, he cited the hyperpartisan atmosphere in Washington as one of the reasons. Tea Partier’s rejoiced and claimed they’d basically run Waxman out of town.

So they supposedly get rid of one liberal and who steps up to replace him? Their worst freakin’ nightmare — who stands a decent chance of winning this liberal district.

Congrats ‘baggers. If Waxman’s retirement was your doing, then Sandra Fluke is a candidate of your own making.

Today’s ridiculous spin from Politico

Or “Trashy, sensationalist story is trashy, sensationalist.”

Politico: President Barack Obama is counting on Senate Democrats to help approve his legislative agenda during his final years in office. And though they are his staunchest allies on most economic issues, many Democratic senators are breaking with him on key issues in very public ways.

From trade to Iran sanctions, the Keystone XL pipeline, Obamacare, the National Security Agency and energy policy, Senate Democrats seem unusually comfortable criticizing the president, with only minimal concerns about repercussions from the White House.

Even Obama’s steadfast ally, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, didn’t mince words last week when he rejected a bill to fast-track trade deals that is strongly backed by the White House, working against Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus of Montana, a Senate colleague who has been tapped to be the president’s ambassador to China.

Even some Republicans are noticing.

Old and tired: GOP Civil War. Fresh and exciting: Democratic Civil War. Pretty snazzy, huh?

Well, it would be if it didn’t also happen to be horsecrap.

Ed Kilgore: Splits from the majority Democratic position by Members of Congress from energy-producing areas is about as new a development as the electric guitar. Of course Mary Landrieu and Joe Manchin are going to complain about utility regulations and fracking restrictions. Indeed, until Republicans abandoned their own environmentalist tradition, a Member of Congress’ region or home-state was far and away the most reliable indicator of their position on energy and environmental issues. And it will, of course, be most visible in the Senate where every energy-producing state has two representatives.

Harry Reid’s rejection of fast-track trade negotiating authority is also un-newsy to anyone remembering similar Democratic hostility to fast-track during the Clinton administration. Yes, there is underlying tension within the Democratic coalition (and also within the Republican coalition, though to a lesser extent) over trade policy, but again, it goes back at least to the 1970s.

The Democratic “revolt” on Iran policy is yesterday’s news in a somewhat different respect: it has been largely quelled as Democratic cosponsors of the Menendez-Kirk sanctions legislation mostly line up in favor of letting Harry Reid keep the bill off the Senate floor until the administration’s negotiations with Iran run their course.

There’s more, but you get the idea. The bare bones of Politico’s hackfest here is that Democrats aren’t of a hivemind — like the lockstep thinking that’s usually a hallmark of the GOP — and that means everything’s in disarray and the party’s falling apart and the White House’s legislative agenda is in shambles and isn’t it all so wonderfully chaotic and newsworthy that you just have to read you some Politico?

But none of this is anything new. It’s become cliché to say that getting Democrats on the same page is like herding cats. and that’s because people have been repeating the analogy for years. None of this is new. Democrats tend to be more independent-minded and willing to go their own way than the more authoritarian and doctrinaire Republicans — Republicans who, ironically, claim to value individualism.

Stories like this are less about Washington and more about Politico’s market strategy. They seek to be the most important journalistic voice in DC by being the one that “drives the conversation.” So if you’re not reading Politico, you’re out of the loop. And you drive the conversation not by being accurate, apparently, but by twisting facts in order to “find” stories that no one else is reporting on. This isn’t so much actually “driving the conversation” as it is “being a hack.”

And it’s not so much journalism as it is writing Washington insider fan fiction.

Pew poll finds voters’ assessments of the two US political parties surprisingly accurate

Washington Post: Democrats hold a sizable advantage on Republicans on several key perceptions of the United States’s two major political parties, according to a new poll.

The Pew Research Center poll show Americans perceive Democrats as more willing to work with the other party than Republicans, by a margin of 52 percent to 27 percent.

Democrats also hold a 20-point advantage when it comes to which party “is more concerned with the needs of people like me” and a 10-point edge when it comes to governing in a more ethical and honest way.

The GOP, meanwhile, is viewed as much more “extreme” in its issue positions (54-35) and more influenced by lobbyists (47-30).

In other words, all five measures favor Democrats by a significant margin.

What’s interesting to me about this is that it demonstrates the complete failure of the “both sides are just as bad” false equivalency narrative that much of the media have been trying to get Americans to buy into. After years of GOP obstructionism, the government shutdown, and the debt limit fiasco, it’s become a tough sell.

You can’t continually vote against the wishes of the people — as the GOP has with immigration, the minimum wage, and unemployment benefits — and expect people to see you as the good guys. And the media is thankfully no help at all in bailing them out. It turns out that their actions speak louder than the media’s words and no amount of spin will bail them out for continually failing the American people.

[photo via Wikimedia Commons]

How to prove gun safety advocates right

Raw Story: A Kentucky lawmaker has confirmed that she accidentally discharged a handgun in her Capitol office on Tuesday.

State Rep. Leslie Combs (D) told WHAS that she was unloading the gun in her Capitol annex office when it discharged. A bookcase was struck by a bullet after it ricocheted off the floor.

Democratic state Rep. Jeff Greer was also in the room but was not injured in the shooting.

“I thought it was totally clear,” she said. “I am a gun owner. It happens.”

Exactly our point. This is precisely why people who aren’t interested in being perforated oppose allowing paranoiacs to drag guns along with them everywhere they go. Your need to feel safe from the boogeyman is not more important than my right to keep the number of holes in my head to a bare minimum.

These sort of accidents will happen. In fact, they happen every day. It’s become clear that the “responsible gun owner” is a far greater danger to the general public than the crazed killers they think they’re protecting everyone from.

It happens. Which is why you shouldn’t be allowed to wander around with a literal killing machine in crowded places. It’s just freakin’ common sense. That way, when it does happen, it happens well away from innocent bystanders.

These things are incredibly dangerous; it’s time we started treating them that way.

Polling demonstrates why Obamacare isn’t going anywhere

Ed Kilgore: In more “no game change” news, Ron Brownstein reports today that a new and very detailed United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll shows little change in basic attitudes towards Obamacare since the last survey of its kind in July:

Amid all the tumult over the law’s troubled implementation, the survey found that public opinion about it largely follows familiar political tracks and has changed remarkably little since the summer on the critical question of what Congress should do next. On that measure, support for repeal has not significantly increased among any major group except Republicans and working-class whites since the Congressional Connection Poll last tested opinion on the question in July.

At present, asked if Congress should repeal Obamacare, leave it alone for now, or provide more funds to help its implementation, repeal is opposed by a 59-38 margin, with, as Brownstein noted, repeal sentiment being mainly confined to Republican and Republican-leaning parts of the electorate. That means two things: Republicans will continue to be encouraged by their “base” to screw up the Affordable Care Act, and Democrats will have little real political incentive to cave.

Backing up this poll is a Reuters/Ipsos poll showing that support for Obamacare overall has dropped by a statistically insignificant 3 points since the last time they polled the issue. The Affordable Care Act still isn’t popular, but the appetite for sweeping changes just isn’t there.

Republicans have vowed to try to repeal the law, but the poll showed they could face some obstacles because some elements of the law, such as requiring insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions, remain popular.

Asked their views on the troubled Obamacare launch, 65 percent favored at least some changes in the health law. But some respondents favored only smaller changes such as delays in the deadline for requiring everyone without health insurance to sign up for coverage.

So a tweak here or there, but otherwise they’re cool. What these steady numbers show is that opinions of the issue are pretty much fixed along partisan lines. As with the National Journal poll, there’s no opening here for Republicans to gain ground and no reason for Democrats to give any up.

Repeal gets deader by the day.

[photo by LaDawna Howard]

RIP Sen. Frank Lautenberg

CBS News: Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., the last World War II veteran serving in the Senate, died due to complications from viral pneumonia at 4:02 a.m. Monday at New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell, his office announced. He was 89 years old.

The Democrat had health problems in recent years and had missed several Senate votes in the first months of the year. He had the flu and missed the Senate’s Jan. 1 vote to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff of rising taxes and falling government spending, then missed several votes two months later because of leg pain.

A chest cold kept him from attending a May 29 tribute in New York honoring him for his contributions to the Jewish community and Israel.

He had been diagnosed in February 2010 with B-cell lymphoma of the stomach and underwent chemotherapy treatments until he was declared in June 2010 to be free of cancer. He worked between the treatments. The diagnosis came just days after the death of West Virginia’s Robert Byrd made Lautenberg the oldest member of the Senate.

Before going to Washington, he was a successful businessman who co-founded the firm Automatic Data Processing.

Lautenberg is survived by his wife, Bonnie Englebardt Lautenberg; six children and their spouses and 13 grandchildren.

Lautenberg was not seeking reelection and his term would’ve ended this cycle. Republican Gov. Chris Christie will appoint a temporary replacement until a special election can be held. This could happen as early as November. Lautenberg was an advocate of stricter gun regulations, an advocate for “Amtrak and other transportation causes, as well as environmental, health care and veterans’ issues.”

Push for gun safety regulation goes on

Greg Sargent: The president’s push for expanded background checks failed, but that doesn’t mean the push for gun control is over — far from it. The defeat of Manchin-Toomey was only round one in what will likely be a long battle to build a new constituency for stricter gun laws to reduce the country’s persistent gun violence.

To wit, Politico reports this morning that Vice President Joe Biden -- who will appear tonight at a South Carolina Democratic dinner -- plans to take “trips around the country to stump for the expanded background checks and gun trafficking laws that failed to pass the Senate last month.”

In particular, he will travel to the home states of Senators Kelly Ayotte, Max Baucus, Mark Begich and Lisa Murkowsi, each of whom has seen a precipitous drop in their approval rating since voting against background checks. Baucus is retiring next year, and Ayotte and Murkowski aren’t up for reelection until 2016. But Begich is running next year, and might be vulnerable to immediate pressure. Even Ayotte has something to worry about — she will run for a second term during a presidential election, where Democratic voters are energized and more numerous. At some point, she will have to appeal to non-Republicans.

And that will mean distancing herself from a National Rifle Association that has walked further and further into the waters of extremism.

Obviously, these appearances serve two purposes — to put potential defectors on the spot, thereby winning more background check votes, and to make gun safety an issue in the 2014 races. Democrats clearly have polling that shows the issue is a potential winning strategy for the party to hold the Senate; otherwise, it’s hard to see them risking putting Democratic senators on the hot seat.

Once again, Republicans find their traditional wedge issues turning against them. They’ve lost immigration and gay rights, they’ve lost reproductive freedom and the environment, and now guns are a loser too. If Democrats turn this into an issue-based election, Republicans lose.

So count on this being a wedge issue election and expect the GOP to find themselves on the sharp end of those wedges.

[photo via IowaPolitics.com]

Kentucky Democratic SuperPAC behind McConnell recordings

Weird, I would’ve bet good money that a staffer or lobbyist had stabbed Mitch in the back. In my defense, I came to that conclusion because I assumed there was some measure of security and secrecy to McConnell’s campaign meetings. Turns out he might as well have broadcast them with a webcam.

Political Wire: A secret recording of a campaign strategy session between Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and his advisors was recorded by leaders of the Progress Kentucky super PAC, Democratic operative Jacob Conway tells WFPL-FM.

The super PAC operatives did not attend the opening of McConnell’s campaign headquarters, but they arrived later and were apparently able to hear the strategy meeting from the hallway.

Said Conway: “One of them held the elevator, the other one did the recording and they left. That was what they told to me from them directly… Apparently the gentlemen overheard the conversation and decided to record it with a phone or recording device they had in their pocket. Could’ve been an iPhone, could’ve been a Flip camera or something like that.”

You could hear all of Mitch’s super-secret campaign plans from the hallway of his building. What is this, some replica Japanese pagoda with paper walls? This whole story gets more and more ridiculous as time goes on. You’d think McConnell were a first term alderman, instead of the minority leader of the US Senate.

[photo by Gage Skidmore]

Harry Reid Needs to Put Up or Shut Up on Filibuster Reform

File under "I wouldn't get my hopes up"; ThinkProgress' Ian Millhiser reports that Senate majority leader Harry Reid is talking filibuster reform again, after the last stab at it turned out to be a completely inadequate joke. In an interview with a public radio station, Reid threatened once again to bring democracy to the US Senate.

“All within the sound of my voice, including my Democratic senators and the Republican senators who I serve with, should understand that we as a body have the power on any given day to change the rules with a simple majority, and I will do that if necessary,” Reid said on Nevada Public Radio.

...“I’m a very patient man. Last Congress and this Congress, we had the opportunity to make some big changes. We made changes, but the time will tell whether they’re big enough. I’m going to wait and build a case,” Reid said. “If the Republicans in the Senate don’t start approving some judges and don’t start helping get some of these nominations done, then we’re going to have to take more action.”

 Yes, Harry Reid is a "very patient man." In fact, on the issue of Republican obstructionism, Harry Reid has been far too patient.

Giving the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre all the respect he deserves

CNN: Responding to criticism from the National Rifle Association over Connecticut’s new gun laws, Gov. Dan Malloy argued the pro-gun group’s executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, is simply blowing smoke.

“Wayne reminds me of the clowns at the circus - they get the most attention. That’s what he’s paid to do,” Malloy said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

The Democratic governor on Thursday signed into law some of the nation’s strictest gun regulations, following the state’s devastating school shooting in December in Newtown, which left 20 children and six adults dead.

The new Connecticut laws include the addition of more than 100 weapons to the state’s list of banned assault weapons - including the semiautomatic Bushmaster rifle, one of the firearms used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre. The law also bans the sale of magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, as well as armor-piercing bullets. Buyers will need a certificate to buy ammunition.

It also requires background checks for all gun purchases.

See, this is the way you deal with political bullies — you smack them right straight in the nose in front of everyone, to demonstrate how powerless they really are. Wayne has no answer for this, the law’s getting passed despite his best efforts. It’s over in Connecticut and LaPierre’s just going to have to shut up and take it

Here’s hoping the weakling dems who roll over every time LaPierre casts a sideways glance get the message; the man is a clown. You’re letting yourself get pushed around by a freakin’ clown.

[photo by silkolive]

Liberal donors not giving up on gun regulation so easily

Greg Sargent:

With red state Democratic Senators remaining skittish about embracing Obama’s gun proposals, at least two top Democratic donors are stepping forward and vowing to withhold any and all future financial contributions from any Democrats who don’t support the centerpiece of Obama’s plan: Expanded background checks.

Kenneth Lerer, a New York businessman who is chairman of Buzzfeed.com, and David Bohnett, a technology entrepreneur and philanthopist based in Los Angeles, are both major financial supporters of Democratic candidates, having each given scores of large contributions over the years. They are both key players in the political fundraising world and wield influence among other donors and fundraisers.

Neither will give another dime to any Senate Democrat who does not support expanded background checks, I’m told — and both will suggest to other donors that they do the same. The move underscores the rising importance of gun control as an issue in Democratic politics — and the rising frustration in some Democratic circles with elected officials who continue to regard gun politics as a third rail, at a moment that presents a real opportunity to achieve serious reform, with a policy that enjoys near universal public support.

“At some point you have to draw a line in the sand — for me that time is now,” Lerer told me in an interview. “If candidates or officeholders can’t support something like comprehensive and enforceable background checks, then I wouldn’t think of giving them any money going forward.”

This sort of thing should happen more often. There’s no point in having a party if there’s no party discipline. If these people can’t be bothered to be anything other than Republicans in Democratic clothing, then we should focus on electing people to replace them. I’ve never been a big fan of blue dogs anyway and recent elections have shown that other voters aren’t either. As Harry Truman said, “Given a choice between a fake Republican and a real one, the public will choose the real Republican every time.” You have to be an alternative to the Republican candidate in order to be an alternative to the Republican candidate — you can’t just be the same guy in a different suit.

There have to be a least a few core Democratic values. Sensible gun regulation and standing up to the pro-criminal blood lobby should be one of them.

The budget plan no one is talking about

Ezra Klein:

The correct counterpart to the unbridled ambition of the Ryan budget isn’t the cautious plan released by the Senate Democrats. It’s the “Back to Work” budget released by the House Progressives.

The “Back to Work” budget is about exactly what the name implies: Putting Americans back to work. The first sentence of the budget lays it out clearly: “We’re in a jobs crisis that isn’t going away.” So that’s the budget’s top priority: fixing the jobs crisis.

The budget begins with a stimulus program that makes the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act look tepid. It includes $2.1 trillion in stimulus and investment from 2013-2015. The main policies there are a $425 billion infrastructure program, a $340 billion middle-class tax cut, a $450 billion public-works initiative, and $179 billion in state and local aid.

This is a lot of stimulus. The liberal Economic Policy Institute estimates that would be sufficient to “boost gross domestic product (GDP) by 5.7 percent and employment by 6.9 million jobs at its peak level of effectiveness (within one year of implementation).”

»READ MORE»

[photo via Digiart2001 | jason.kuffer]

Paul Ryan, artifact of a bygone era

I always say that when a Republican talks about change, you should watch out -- because it means they want to change something back to the way it was when things sucked.

Dems use billboard outside the Republican convention to hit Romney on outsourcing

The image changes once every 7.5 seconds.

Stories to Watch: 7/31/11

Got out to a street fair yesterday. Bands, beer, and burgers. Pretty hot though, but that's what all the beer was for. Now here's the news...


Another day, another debt limit deal. I don't suppose it would surprise you to learn that this one sucks.

***
At this point, it doesn't seem like anyone's considering any deal that doesn't fuck up the economy. My advice for Democrats; preview the consequences for the American people. Get someone in leadership out there, preferably the president, to explain that this is all a very, very bad idea. "The deal we struck today is crap. It's awful. Expect unemployment to rise, consumer demand to drop, and the gap between the rich and everyone else to widen further," the Democrat could say. "Republicans made it impossible to get a deal any less stupid and destructive and, bad as it is, we believe that default would be worse -- slightly. When this whole thing goes south, you know who to come looking for. Republicans broke your economy. Today we were only able to prevent them from doing even worse. And when Republicans try to spin this into being Democrats' fault -- and I guarantee they will -- remember what I say to you today; we told you so."

Sure it's passing the buck, but taking ownership of this economic flateartherism would be numbskullery.

***
The most popular solution to debt and deficit? Soaking the rich -- by 72%. So, of course, that's totally off the table.


Why are Republicans so fascinated with Nazis?


When is an act of terrorism not worth freaking out over? When some nut firebombs a Planned Parenthood.


Speaking of arson, it could be that the dirtiest of dirty tricks has been pulled in the Wisconsin recall fight.


Finally, a glimpse at the sort of jobs Republicans think America needs. It's not pretty.

Related articles

• Jon Kyl Continues the "Can't Raise Taxes on the Job Creators" Nonsense in the Republican Weekly Address (crooksandliars.com)
• Report: Tentative Debt Deal Reached Between Obama And Republicans (mediaite.com)
• Wisconsin Tea Party Republican Admits She Compared Public Schools To Nazi Germany (alan.com)
• Sunday Reads: Fires, Firebombs and Forced Migration (skydancingblog.com)

Feinstein on Wikileaks: It's Only Journalism if I Say it's Journalism

Sen. Diane Feinstein in the Wall Street Journal:

When WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange released his latest document trove -- more than 250,000 secret State Department cables -- he intentionally harmed the U.S. government. The release of these documents damages our national interests and puts innocent lives at risk. He should be vigorously prosecuted for espionage.

The law Mr. Assange continues to violate is the Espionage Act of 1917. That law makes it a felony for an unauthorized person to possess or transmit "information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation."

The Espionage Act also makes it a felony to fail to return such materials to the U.S. government. Importantly, the courts have held that "information relating to the national defense" applies to both classified and unclassified material. Each violation is punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

No doubt aware of this law, and despite firm warnings, Mr. Assange went ahead and released the cables on Nov. 28.

Glenn Greenwald responds:

...Legal experts overwhelmingly believe that any such prosecution under that law would be extremely difficult and "extremely dangerous," but that's of no concern to the Surveillance-State-protecting, Iraq-War-supporting, defense-contractor-plutocrat:  the "liberal" Democratic Senator from California.  To argue this, she invokes the most tired and simple-minded platitude beloved by all those who want to curtail basic press and speech freedoms:  "Just as the First Amendment is not a license to yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theater, it is also not a license to jeopardize national security."

Every line of pro-prosecution rationale cited by Feinstein applies equally to journalists -- including especially the newspapers from around the world which are publishing all of the same diplomatic cables as WikiLeaks is, and which are publishing them before WikiLeaks even does.   How can it possibly be that WikiLeaks should be prosecuted for espionage, but not The New York Times, or The Guardian, or any other newspaper that publishes these cables?

In 2006, Alberto Gonzales threatened to prosecute The New York Times for revealing Bush's illegal NSA program, and The Weekly Standard ran numerous articles calling for the prosecution of NYT journalists and editors under the Espionage Act for having done so.  Bill Bennett demanded the prosecution of The Washington Post's Dana Priest for revealing the CIA black sites.  How can all the Good Democrats who condemned that mentality possibly not condemn Dianne Feinstein and those who think like her?  What's the difference?

For the record, you do get to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there's actually a fire in that crowded theater. And you get to do it without being charged with arson. The only distinction that Feinstein makes that would separate Assange from a journalist is her say-so: "Mr. Assange claims to be a journalist and would no doubt rely on the First Amendment to defend his actions. But he is no journalist: He is an agitator intent on damaging our government, whose policies he happens to disagree with, regardless of who gets hurt." First Amendment guarantees of a free press don't apply -- so long as a sitting senator arbitrarily declares you "not a journalist."

Think what you like about Wikileaks and what they do, but this is a dangerous and irresponsible argument.



UPDATE: Joe Lieberman jumps on the "let's ignore the First Amendment" bandwagon and takes Feinstein's argument to the next logical step, suggesting that media outlets like the New York Times could be prosecuted for covering details of the leaks.

Bernie Sanders and the Redistribution of Wealth

The always awesome Sen. Bernie Sanders on redistribution of wealth.

The wealthy, with the help of Republicans and "centrist" Democrats, have taken your wealth. Now, when we ask for a little bit of that back, they fucking whine about it. There's been a redistribution of wealth from you, to them.

And, at every turn, you've been told that this is going to help you. How's that been working out for you? I've said it before and I'll say it again; if you aren't rich and you voted Republican, you're a fool. Next time, don't even bother to vote. Just find some Mercedes or Ferrari on the street and put your wallet under one of the wiper blades. Why waste time with a middleman?