A Dem winning an election is better than the Republican winning almost every time. But among Dems, who is it more important to see win? The fighting progressive or the craven Blue Dog? This is a theme regular readers will have read before from me, but, via Digby, Howie Klein seems to make a similar argument, but gets it a little wrong in my view. Howie writes:

With very few exceptions, the Democrats in the most vulnerable positions are conservatives who have voted most consistently with Boehner and the untrusted GOP minority, Blue Dogs like Bobby Bright (AL), Glenn Nye (VA), Chris Carney (PA), Travis Childers (MS) and Frank Kratovil (MD) and inherently reactionary political cowards with no moral compasses like Tom Perriello (VA), Suzanne Kosmas (FL) and Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ). If Democrats can manage to hang onto the few progressives who refused to play the Republican lite game who are in jeopardy in swing districts-- Carol Shea-Porter (NH), Alan Grayson (FL), Mary Jo Kilroy (OH), Phil Hare (IL)-- and at the same time, manage to shed some of the dead weight, the House Democratic caucus will be far better off, far more focused on helping ordinary American families and far less susceptible to blackmail from corporate conservatives in its own midst.

The problem is not the dead weight imo. The problem is CATERING to the dead weight. (I wrote about that a few years ago.) That said, for progressives, the fight should be for the one who fought for you. That ain't the Blue Dogs.

Speaking for me only

Glenn Greenwald cites to this Scott Horton post on the question of Presidential assassinations. Glenn describes Horton's post thusly:

Harper's Scott Horton, who says he originally thought the objections of civil libertarians in the Awlaki case were overblown, but has now concluded -- in light of the Obama DOJ's brief -- that the Obama program is the embodiment of "tyranny"[.]

Horton's post is quite muddled in my view (and rightly so - this is a very tough issue.) For Horton also writes:

I don’t for a second question the principle established in Quirin, and I believe that the president can in some circumstances target and remove figures in a command-and-control position over hostile forces even if they are removed from a conventional battlefield. But I am deeply suspicious of the need to add to the president’s theoretical powers by killing a U.S. citizen in Yemen who could certainly be captured, brought back to the United States and put on trial.

(Emphasis supplied.) What if the President concludes that Al-Alwaki was "in a command-and-control position over hostile forces removed from a conventional battlefield?" I have great respect for Greenwald and Horton. I think they raise important problems with this policy. I think the legality of the policy is not one of those problems.

Speaking for me only

So Markos posts about waning Latino enthusiasm for Dems and one of the first comments to the post is this (from a guy we like and respect no less):

Hard for me to understand Hispanics voting for a candidate from a party that demonizes them. Yes, I can understand disappointment with Dems, but voting for bigoted Rs makes no sense.

I happen to agree with this sentiment but find it disheartening that Democrats, from the President on down, seem to think the proper reaction to this type of finding is to "blame the voter."

I want to try this one more time to see if my mic is on - POLITICS IS STUPID! But the STUPIDEST politics is blaming the voter. Please stop it Dems. Which reminds me of this from Jon Stewart.

Speaking for me only

The issue of the "kill or capture" order issued by President Obama against Al-Awlaki (believed to be in Yemen) has spurred significant debate. I think it is a very difficult issue as a policy question, but what it boils down to as a legal question is this - what is the battlefield when it comes to terrorism? Glenn Greenwald writes:

I actually can't believe that there is even a "debate" over whether an American President -- without a shred of due process or oversight -- has the power to compile hit lists of American citizens whom he orders the CIA to kill far away from any battlefield.

(Emphasis supplied.) While using the appropriate word in this case - "assassination" - is intended to shock, and it definitely jars, the REAL issue is what is the battlefield? Glenn is just plain wrong in my view when he writes "it's almost impossible to ignore how similar are the rhetoric and rationale between (a) Bush supporters who justified presidential torture and (b) Obama supporters who now justify presidential due-process-free assassinations." Let's be clear - torture is a war crime, illegal under US law, is ineffective and is simply indefensible morally and legally. Glenn's "b" is what happens in war. Now you can argue that war is like torture (remember that torture is a violation of the Laws of War) and to even speak of Laws of War as an oxymoron, but it is simply wrong of Glenn to act as if they are the same. More . . .

Alan Grayson discusses the foreclosure mills issue:

Atrios pithily describes the problem with the Obama Administration approach - "the banksters f**king suck." The NYTimes more genteely says - "it is folly to rely on banks that got us into this mess to get us out." FULL DISCLOSURE - I am advising some parties related to this issue (the little guys for once.)

Speaking for me only

I don't want to talk about it.

Open Thread.

There was a big fuss a month ago when Facebook rejected ads for Just Say Now, a grass-roots movement urging legalization of marijuana for adult personal use.

The Denver Post today has a long article on the changing landscape in marijuana politics. What I found interesting, was the ad banner at the top of the article.

Come on, Facebook. If the Denver Post can run an ad, why can't you?

Last week, Senators Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT)introduced S. 3932, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform ("CIR") Act of 2010, The ACLU says it has some good due process protection measures, but it falls short in other key areas, particularly the e-verify program and in its enforcement measures, many of which run counter to civil liberties.

Here are the problems with the enforcement measures:

S. 3932 .... unfortunately leaves intact the 287(g) program run by Department of Homeland Security Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"), which delegates certain federal immigration enforcement power to designated state and local police. Earlier this year, the DHS Office of Inspector General issued a scathing report of the 287(g) program, recommending 33 critical reforms to be implemented. ICE has failed to implement the vast majority of those recommendations and instead has expanded the 287(g) program to 70 jurisdictions.

[More...]

In case you missed it, Kanye West's performing "Power" on SNL last night was pretty stunning with the ballet dancers, visually. Tonight there's Boardwalk Empire, and a new season begins for the Iron Chef. Also: Brothers and Sisters. (And yes, for some, Sunday Night Football.)

What are you watching tonight?

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

Rahm Emanuel made it official today. He's running for Mayor of Chicago. His website is up and running. His first action after setting up his FB page and website: embarking on "listening tour" across Chicago.

Who are among Rahm's first intended victims?

To be the city we want to be, we can't have gangbangers taking the lives of our schoolchildren.

Gang leaders don't target children, nor do they condone their killing, according to Tio Hardiman, director of CeaseFire Illinois, which works to prevent neighborhood violence. He probably knows a lot more about the subject than Rahm.

I'd like to hear Rahm promise some innovative juvenile justice programs and programs designed to assist at-risk kids in finding alternatives to gangs. Instead, he's promising more of a crackdown, which is as sure to fail as the war on drugs.

Here's Rahm's stance on issues while in Congress. [More...]

It's another beautiful day in Colorado.

For those of you online, here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

A new poll shows the conservative tea-party favored Senate candidate, prosecutor Ken Buck, is leading among independents in Colorado.

In the state's highest profile race, Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck (R-Colorado) leads Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colorado) 48 to 43 percent with eight percent going to another candidate and one percent undecided. Of the polling sample, Buck leads among self-described independents, 53 to 34 percent. He also leads decidedly among male voters, 52 to 37 percent, and among younger voters ages 18 to 34, 54 to 33 percent.

Where Sen. Michael Bennet is leading: Among women and older voters. Why? Because of Buck's positions against abortion and conflicting position on birth control and social security.

So Dems need to get out the female and older voters. Another reason it matters: The Personhood Amendment is on the ballot. If the anti-choice crowd comes out in greater numbers, the amendment, which grants constitutional rights from the moment of conception, has a greater chance of passing. [More...]