Via Kos, Republicans arguing for expansive statutory interpretation and Dems for strict construction:

Coleman lawyer James Langdon said that the Franken team "would have you sit in a vacuum, strictly interpreting a statute[]" . . . The Franken camp argued the opposite -- that Minnesota laws are very specific about what kinds of ballots are to be counted . . . "The contestants [Coleman] talk a lot about what they wish the law might be, but not what the law is," said lead Franken lawyer Marc Elias. "And the law is what it is, and has strict requirements that must be adhered to."

Without knowing more, I must admit I prefer the Coleman argument, especially when it comes to counting votes. Beyond that, if a consistent standard is applied, does anyone doubt Franken will still win? I am not thrilled with people not actually parties to the dispute letting their concern for voters suddenly disappear. Franken should be arguing for consistent expansive standards imo. I find his reversal the more depressing. I already expect the worst from Republicans.

Speaking for me only

Glenn Greenwald discusses a John Judis piece about the absence of a progressive flank in our political discourse. Both pieces are good and the themes not unfamiliar to readers of this blog. As if to confirm the thesis forwarded by Judis, Greenwald and others (including me), DemfromCt at daily kos played the "unhinged" card on Krugman, in the best traditions of A Sullivan (prior to his conversion from adulating Bush to adulating Obama) because Krugman was critical of Obama on the stimulus package. But it also brought to mind the attacks, led by Atrios , on Ben Smith, who suggested there would be little progressive pushback against "entitlement reform." Atrios wrote:

Even Charles Dickens would never have come up with this one:

[Judge] Mark A. Ciavarella Jr., and a colleague, Michael T. Conahan, appeared in federal court in Scranton, Pa., to plead guilty to wire fraud and income tax fraud for taking more than $2.6 million in kickbacks to send teenagers to two privately run youth detention centers run by PA Child Care and a sister company, Western PA Child Care.

While prosecutors say that Judge Conahan, 56, secured contracts for the two centers to house juvenile offenders, Judge Ciavarella, 58, was the one who carried out the sentencing to keep the centers filled.

Among the victims: A 17 year old who spoofed her principal on My Space got 3 months in juvenile detention. Total number of victims since the pair began the scheme in 2003: 5,000 juveniles. [More...]

I have to confess to intellectual dishonesty by omission regarding the "surge" in Iraq. I have never spent much time stating my view that the surge, despite the date showing a drop in violence, is futile (after we leave, Iraq will, imo, plunge into civil war.) The reason why is because, for forwarding the policy I favor, withdrawal from Iraq, the surge has certainly worked. We will withdraw from Iraq in no small measure because they surge is perceived as having "worked." Matt Yglesis, pointing to this news report of the murder of 30 pilgirms by a suicide bomber in Iraq, correctly notes:

I have no doubt that had we instead pursued a policy of strategic redeployment starting in January 2007 and the exact same situation had played out, that the facts on the ground would be cited as evidence that the doves were wrong to leave behind an Iraq torn by violence, riven by factionalism, and governed by Iran-linked parties.

Precisely. That is why the "surge" "worked" for those of us who favor withdrawal from Iraq.

Speaking for me only

A lot of people will be talking about Krugman's column:

Obama got more or less what he asked for, he almost certainly didn’t ask for enough. We’re probably facing the worst slump since the Great Depression. The Congressional Budget Office, not usually given to hyperbole, predicts that over the next three years there will be a $2.9 trillion gap between what the economy could produce and what it will actually produce. And $800 billion, while it sounds like a lot of money, isn’t nearly enough to bridge that chasm.

A Times editorial chimes in:

I could leave his name out of the article, but by now you'd all know who he is: AZ most reprehensible Sheriff, Joe Arpaio. Here's what he's up to now:

Months ago, Arpaio and his deputies began scouring Hispanic neighborhoods in the Phoenix area looking for illegal immigrants. So far, hundreds have been hauled away.

Often in these types of operations, "probable cause" gets defined as brown skin and Spanish accents. So, there is no telling how many U.S.-born Hispanics were detained and harassed in the process.

All of which sets the stage for the stunt. The man who put inmates in pink underwear and fed them green bologna has some people in Arizona seeing red after he recently paraded about 200 illegal immigrants in shackles and prison stripes to his notorious "Tent City." Of course, Arpaio did this after alerting the media.

The inmates are to stay in the tents until sentenced and deported. That's right. They haven't been convicted or sentenced yet. But in Maricopa County, the little things need not interfere with punishment.

Is former AZ top cop, now Homeland Security Chief Janet Napolitano going to rein him in? I wouldn't put money on it.

In 2003, when Andrew Sullivan still swore undying allegiance to George W. Bush and the economic analysis of Don Luskin, he devoted much of his time attacking Paul Krugman for criticizing George W. Bush. In 2003, Bob Somerby reported on it:

This is now a standard motif of the rube-running right. If you disagree with Bush, you’re a hater—or you have to be crazy. Last Friday, for example, Andrew Sullivan threw pleasing feed to the herd, referring to “the unhinged” Paul Krugman. . . . There’s no such thing as principled disagreement. Those who dispute you are simply unbalanced.

Now the attacks on Krugman as unhinged come from Daily Kos, from DemfromCt, who summarizes Krugman's column today as follows:

I haven't seen one bit of news today. Hope you all can fill me in. Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

Strange:

New Hampshire Republican Sen. Judd Gregg has withdrawn his name from consideration as President Barack Obama's Commerce Secretary, a major blow to an Administration seeking to put a series of Cabinet problems behind it. "It has become apparent during this process that this will not work for me as I have found that on issues such as the stimulus package and the census there are irresolvable conflicts for me," Gregg said in a statement to be released by his office. "Prior to accepting this post, we had discussed these and other potential differences, but unfortunately we did not adequately focus on these concerns."

What in Gawd's name did they focus on? To be honest, the Commerce Secreatary is a meaningless post, so it was an empty gesture from Obama in the first place. And what Gregg was thinking is still not apparent. In any event, not a big deal, imo, either way.

Speaking for me only

From the Center For Constitutional Rights:

Documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit confirm Department of Defense involvement in the CIA’s ghost detention program, revealed three prominent human rights groups today. The groups—Amnesty International USA (AIUSA), the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), and the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice (CHRGJ)—today released documents obtained from the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) and U.S. Department of State (DOS), resulting from their lawsuit seeking the disclosure of government documents that relate to secret detention, extraordinary rendition, and torture. At a public press conference, the groups revealed that these documents confirm the existence of secret prisons at Bagram and in Iraq; affirm the DOD’s cooperation with the CIA’s ghost detention program; and show one case where the DOD sought to delay the release of Guantánamo prisoners who were scheduled to be sent home by a month and a half in order to avoid bad press.

More . .

In a way, this Gallup poll result is stunning:

While no more than 41% of Americans favor a criminal investigation into any of the matters, at least 6 in 10 say there should be either a criminal investigation or an independent probe into all three [torture, DOJ firings and politicization and warrantless wiretapping.] This includes 62% who favor some type of investigation into the possible use of torture when interrogating terrorism suspects, 63% who do so with respect to the possible use of telephone wiretaps without obtaining a warrant, and 71% who support investigating possible attempts to use the Justice Department for political purposes.

(Emphasis supplied.) But to be honest, what it really is is a lesson in how poll results are so dependent on the question asked. I'll explain on the flip.

It's a brief writing day for me, so here's an open thread for you. All topics welcome.