democrats

2011年6月27日星期一

Ann Coulter takes on Howard Dean about Wal-Mart SCOTUS decision (Daily Caller)

在 ServiceModel 客户端配置部分中，找不到引用协定“TranslatorService.LanguageService”的默认终结点元素。这可能是因为未找到应用程序的配置文件，或者是因为客户端元素中找不到与此协定匹配的终结点元素。
在 ServiceModel 客户端配置部分中，找不到引用协定“TranslatorService.LanguageService”的默认终结点元素。这可能是因为未找到应用程序的配置文件，或者是因为客户端元素中找不到与此协定匹配的终结点元素。
The Supreme Court ruled yesterday by a 5-4 decision that a class action lawsuit filed in California had failed to prove gender discrimination was a widespread policy of Wal-Mart. The markets rallied after the suit was dismissed and it was heralded as a positive sign for business in the United States by some observers.

On Monday’s “The Kudlow Report” on CNBC, conservative pundit and “Demonic” author Ann Coulter took on former Democratic National Committee chairman and CNBC contributor Howard Dean on the merits of the decision. Coulter explained the circumstances where a class action lawsuit would have been appropriate, such as when a broad range of individuals in similar circumstances are affected in a way that each individual case would not make financial sense to try separately.

“[H]ere you have none of that,” Coulter said. “You have, as you bring up, absolutely individual circumstances with each employee — not only that, you have individual circumstances with each manager. All of these employees have different managers determining what they get paid, how long they work, what their work treatment is like. The reason they wanted a class action in California was because of the Ninth Circuit, which is very anti-employer. It’s an insane case for a class-action case. And not surprisingly, 9-0, the court reject this had case, although at the risk of having the market collapse again, it was 5-4 with the four liberals saying that they could have brought a class-action under a different theory.”

Dean was less impressed with the Court’s decision and declared it an “anti-worker court,” but noted that the decision didn’t absolve Wal-Mart of the discrimination charges.

“Look, first of all, it’s important to note that the court did not find there was no discrimination,” Dean said. “That I didn’t hear anybody trying to claim that they found there was no discrimination. There could be. We don’t know that. That’s an issue that has to be tried. I hope a public interest lawyer who doesn’t rely on the 30 percent or whatever it is commission will be able to still try the case and find out. Secondly, it is true. This is a tough decision for employees. This is a pro-business court which makes it an anti-worker court, I guess in this context. I personally don’t think that’s a good thing for the country. I think right now, the corporate balance sheets have recovered fully from the crash of September 2008. But the balance sheets of the American families haven’t recovered. I think we’re out of balance. You know, I’m not a lawyer. I can’t say whether the — if they had a unanimous decision saying this particular one wasn’t the right way to certify it, we have to respect the unanimous decisions of the Supreme Court.”

Dean told Kudlow he wasn’t biased against Wal-Mart, but wished the company had put more of an emphasis on jobs in the United States versus overseas.

“Larry, let’s be honest — first of all, I’m not in the ‘I hate Wal-Mart’ crowd,” Dean said. “I think they’ve changed a lot over the last five or six years and I think they’ve made a difference. And they’ve created millions of jobs. Unfortunately most of the millions of jobs they’ve created have been in China, not in the United States. So I think it’s time we gave American workers a break here. I don’t think this case was much of a break for most American workers.”

However, Coulter said it wasn’t a defeat for employees necessarily, but instead a defeat for trial lawyers.

“I would like to disagree with the idea that this is employer versus employee here,” Coulter said. “This was anti-trial lawyer. That’s the advantage of the class-action. They get all their attorneys’ fees for the entire country. They get much bigger damage as a slice of this. Employees would have been hurt by this because Wal-Mart would have had a lot less money, all going to trial lawyers to hire more employees. This is not employer versus employee.”

Illinois governor signs election law favoring Democrats (Reuters)

CHICAGO (Reuters) – Illinois Democratic Governor Pat Quinn signed into law on Friday a new congressional district map that could reverse gains Republicans made in the state in 2010 midterm elections.

Democrats were able to leverage their control of the General Assembly and a Democratic governor to approve a new election map for 2012 that analysts said could help Democrats win at least three more congressional seats in the state.

The effects of the law, which Republicans or third-party interest groups may challenge in court, would be to pit strong Republicans against each other, extend Chicago Democratic incumbent districts into suburban Republican districts, and incorporate new voter blocs into Republican strongholds.

Quinn denied that the redistricting was a partisan ploy by Democrats.

"This map is fair, maintains competitiveness within congressional districts, and protects the voting rights of minority communities," Quinn said.

Illinois Republican Party Chairman Pat Brady differed.

"This bill is a crass, partisan political move to silence the voices of Illinoisans, who last November made it very clear that they wanted to fire Nancy Pelosi by electing a majority Republican Congressional Delegation from the home state of President Obama," Brady said.

The Illinois Republican Party's lawyers will review the maps to see if any state or federal laws have been broken, said Jonathan Blessing, a party spokesman.

In the 2010 midterm elections, Republicans picked up 60 House seats nationally, knocking Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi from power and putting Republicans in charge of House committees. It was the biggest shift in power in the House since Democrats gained 75 House seats in 1948.

But Democratic analysts believe Illinois and California, where Democrats are still in power at the state level, are their best chances to gain back seats in 2012 through redistricting.

Republicans in power in most of the Midwest and South are drawing maps in those states seeking to protect new Republican members of Congress elected in 2010.

In Illinois, Republicans picked up four seats in 2010 to hold an overall edge of 11 to 8 in the state's congressional delegation. They also kept control of the wealthy North Shore suburban Chicago district vacated by Republican Mark Kirk's successful Senate bid.

Illinois will lose one of its 19 congressional seats due to slow population growth relative to other states, according to the federal census.

Andy Shaw, President of the Better Government Association, said the Illinois map was partisan politics as usual.

"Most of Quinn's adult life was spent in opposition to this blatant political manipulation of the system," Shaw told Reuters. "His willingness to sign the bill without any changes is another indication that he has had to abandon many of his progressive principles to be able to deal with the political realities of Springfield (the state capital)," he said.

(Editing by Greg McCune)

View the original article here

Alcee Hastings Sexual Harassment Charge Another Distraction for Congress (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | If the House Democrats thought they were finally out of the woods with the resignation of Anthony Weiner, it appears they have thought wrong. The latest congressman to be involved in a sex scandal is Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Hastings is being investigated by the Office of Congressional Ethics for allegedly sexually harassing a member of his staff. The staffer in question, Winsome Parker, worked for the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, a Cold War era entity that Hastings heads. Parker alleges instances of sexual harassment, usually involving inappropriate remarks, lasting just more than two years. She further alleges the congressman retaliated against her when she tried to report the matter. A lawyer for Rep. Hastings denies the allegations.

It is unknown whether the investigation will be referred to the House Ethics Committee. If that happens, one can only think that House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is not going to be happy. Her forlorn hope of ever becoming Speaker of the House again will just get all that more forlorn. Getting her caucus snake bit with another sordid scandal is something she does not need right at the moment. The is especially true as she needs to begin accusing Republicans of wanting to kill old people again and not have to explain why her members have impulse control issues.

Hastings actually came to Congress with an ethical cloud hanging over him, having been removed from the bench for conspiring to take a bribe. The jury, however, failed to convict him on that charge.

To be sure, what Hastings is accused of seems positively decorous compared to what Weiner did. But ever since Clarence Thomas, lewd behavior toward a subordinate has become quite unacceptable. This is true in the corporate world as well as in politics.

The Hastings matter has not yet risen to the level in which it has caused calls for resignation, daily coverage in the media, and become the subject of jokes by late night comedians. It could be that the matter will be dealt with quietly, either with Hastings being absolved, or with him being found guilty and having some kind of sanction imposed on him that would be less than having to resign from the Congress. Nancy Pelosi should hope that will be the case. Otherwise she has another distraction on her hands.

View the original article here

How and Why Republicans Suppress Voter Rights (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | Republicans often accuse Democrats of voter fraud, despite the activist judges and squelched recounts that won them the 2000 presidential election. These accusations continue today, even though there's little substance to back them up, for one reason:

Republicans consider all Democratic votes to be illegitimate

Tea partiers compare Democratic leaders to Nazis, and scrutinized Obama's birth certificate to a degree that no white, Republican candidate has ever faced ... even one who was born outside the United States, as Sen. John McCain was. To them, no Democratic leader is legitimate, and many preach the use of the "ammo box" to get their way if the ballot box fails them. Unfortunately, the less stable among them heed these calls.

One of this year's earlier Republican presidential hopefuls, Mike Huckabee, said at the Rediscover God in America conference that he "almost wish[ed]" all Americans would be "forced at gunpoint" to listen to revisionist historian David Barton. Barton misquotes America's founders, in order to teach that the United States were meant to be a "Christian nation." His website even promotes "Biblical slavery" for unbelievers.

A party whose leaders and pundits proclaim such views can be expected to act on them. That's why a new crop of voter suppression laws is coming into effect, in states brought under Republican control during the 2010 elections.

Voter suppression 101

Naturally, laws designed to suppress the vote are never described as such. Not except in especially candid moments, like when New Hampshire's Republican House Speaker said letting people register to vote on Election Day led to "the kids coming out of the schools and basically doing what I did when I was a kid, which is voting as a liberal." In other words, he admitted that the laws he promotes, such as that one and photo ID laws, are designed to suppress Democratic votes.

An innocent observer might ask, what's wrong with tightening our laws to make sure no voter fraud happens? The problem is two-fold. First, there is no real voter fraud problem to begin with; and second, tougher laws make it harder for society's weakest members to vote.

Students, minorities, the poor and disabled, and America's working class all have less ability to learn and comply with these laws, and may not know about them until it's too late. Even a photo ID requirement could be the last straw, for a student or single mom working two jobs. And it's exactly these harried people who are likely to be hardest hit by a law that says they can't register at the polls.

An unsympathetic conservative might reply with an anecdote about pulling himself up by his bootstraps, and how these kids and poor people have to learn responsibility (that's why they're poor, you know). But a more cynical observer might note that those most affected by these laws are more likely to vote Democrat, and that the Republican winners of 2010 are writing them -- effectively kicking the working poor while they're down. Even voter outreach programs are being curtailed, so that "get out the vote" efforts stall.

Might makes right

To a conservative enough Republican, there are no legitimate Democrat votes. And as long as the ballot box is a way to make your voice heard in government, they will do their best to deny it to everyone who disagrees with them. Especially the most vulnerable members of our society, who don't have an "ammo box" to fall back on and wouldn't use one if they did.

View the original article here

Clinton argues for Libya mission on eve of vote (AP)

WASHINGTON – Scrambling to turn back the fiercest congressional challenge to the president's military authority on Libya, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton pleaded with House Democrats on Thursday to continue U.S. military involvement in the NATO-led operation.

Defiant Republican leaders pushed toward a crucial vote to cut off funds for hostilities.

Just hours after bluntly posing the question, "Whose side are you on?" — Moammar Gadhafi or the Libyan people, Clinton met with rank-and-file Democrats to explain the mission and the stakes if the House votes to prohibit funds. The administration requested the closed-door meeting.

"The issue today, as she pointed out, was whether or not we were going to abandon what is an effort that our allies have made at the request of the United Nations, the Arab League and others to intervene and to support our allies in this effort," Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 House Democrat, said following the session. "I agree with her strongly that ... to send any signal today that Congress is not supportive of the effort to involve itself in a humanitarian effort at the request of a broad international coalition would be a mistake."

House Republicans and Democrats are furious with President Barack Obama for failing to seek congressional authorization for the 3-month-old war against Libya, as required under the War Powers Resolution. The 1973 law, often ignored by Republican and Democratic presidents, says the commander in chief must seek congressional consent within 60 days. That deadline has long passed.

Obama stirred congressional unrest last week when he told lawmakers he didn't need authorization because the operation was not full-blown hostilities. NATO commands the operation, but the United States still plays a significant support role that includes aerial refueling of warplanes and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance work as well as drone attacks and bombings.

A New York Times report that said Obama overruled some of his legal advisers further incensed members of Congress.

Reflecting the widespread dissatisfaction, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said the chamber will vote Friday on two measures: a resolution to authorize the operation and legislation that would cut off funds for hostilities such as Predator drone attacks and airstrikes.

"I just believe that because of the president's failure to consult with the Congress, failure to outline for the American people why we were doing this before we engaged in this puts us in the position where we have to defend our responsibility under the Constitution," Boehner said. "And that's why these resolutions are in fact going to come forward."

The bill would make an exception for search and rescue efforts, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, aerial refueling and operational planning to continue the NATO effort.

"I don't want to do anything that would undermine NATO or to send a signal to our allies around the world that we are not going to be engaged," Boehner told reporters. "This is primarily a fight between the Congress and the president over his unwillingness to consult with us before making this decision."

Three-term Rep. Tim Walz, D-Minn., said Clinton apologized for not coming to Congress earlier. But he said she warned about the implications of a House vote to cut off money.

"The secretary expressed her deep concern that you're probably not on the right track when Gadhafi supports your efforts," Walz said.

Rep. Howard Berman of California, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said such a vote "ensures the failure of the whole mission."

Shortly before her appearance, the Congressional Progressive Caucus issued a statement calling for lawmakers to vote to cut off funds, saying the Libya operation undercuts the powers of Congress and is a blow to the constitutional checks and balances.

During a brief visit to Jamaica, Clinton said lawmakers were free to raise questions, but asked, "Are you on Gadhafi's side, or are you on the side on the aspirations of the Libyan people and the international coalition that has been bringing them support? For the Obama administration the answer to that question is clear."

Proponents of the House bill, including Rep. Tom Rooney, R-Fla., the sponsor of the measure, said the administration "should have thought about that before they ignored the law."

In the Senate, backers of a resolution to authorize the operation wondered whether the administration had waited too long to address the concerns of House members.

"It's way late," said Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee. "This is one of the reasons why they're having this veritable uprising in the House, because of a lack of communication. And then the icing on the cake was probably for them when he (Obama) said that we're not engaged in hostilities. That obviously is foolishness."

He added, however, "That is not a reason to pass a resolution that would encourage Moammar Gadhafi to stay in power."

Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., said no matter the view of the War Powers Resolution or the president's March 19 move to launch airstrikes against Gadhafi's forces, "either we finish the fight and Gadhafi's overthrown and he leaves Libya and the Libyan people have a chance to govern themselves or a vicious anti-American dictator stays in power, which would be very hurtful to us and our credibility in the world."

___

Associated Press writer Alan Fram contributed to this report.

View the original article here

White House Swaps Applause for Laughter at Obama's Job Boast (The Atlantic Wire)

Attention conservative blogosphere: the White House would like to set the record straight about a little parenthetical in a recent transcript. Late yesterday, you see, the White House posted Obama's recent remarks to the Democratic National Committee, which included this line: "Over the last 15 months we've created over 2.1 million private sector jobs. (Laughter.)."

Related: New Poll Puts Obama's Job Approval Up 11 Points, But Will It Last?

Related: President Obama Magically Silences a Crying Baby

Conservative bloggers, of course, had a field day. The Drudge Report has been running the excerpt as an above-the-fold headline for much of the day. Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit chose the headline, "Wow. Even DNC Donors Break Out in Laughter When Obama Claims He Created Jobs," adding, "For the record…?The country has?lost 2.5 million jobs?since he moved into the White House. Maybe that's why they were laughing?" Kerry Pickett at The Washington Times was a bit more forgiving, hypothesizing that "those watching the closed captioned text of the speech on television sets?saw a laugh cue instead of an applause cue." To be sure, Pickett added, "the president isn't laughing, but Republicans and other critics of his private sector job creation claims sure are."

Related: The Behind-the-Scenes Moments of the Bin Laden Raid

Mistake or not, the White House moved to correct the record. A little after 4 PM EST, it sent out a "corrected" version of the transcript to the White House press list, striking out "laughter" and replacing it with "applause." Will the bloggers buy it?

Related: Obama Decides Against Releasing Bin Laden Photos

Related: What the Navy SEAL Helmet Cams Saw During the Bin Laden Raid

Want to add to this story? Open Wire.

View the original article here

Senate Democrats seek new economic stimulus (Reuters)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Democrats in the Senate on Wednesday called on Vice President Joe Biden to include new economic stimulus spending in deficit-reduction talks as a way of lowering the 9.1 percent jobless rate that is hobbling the economic recovery.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made the proposal to the White House, Richard Durbin, the No. 2 Democratic senator, told reporters.

"The Republicans are fixating on the budget deficit and it's a serious problem," Durbin said.

But citing the conclusions of a presidential deficit-cutting commission that he served on last year, Durbin added, "Get the recovery right before you get in this deficit cutting mode ... get people back to work. Let's start moving in that direction."

A senior Democratic aide said the job-creation idea Senate Democrats are now pursuing represented a pivot in the deficit-reduction negotiations.

He said the idea presented to the White House has three components to help create jobs: new infrastructure spending, a payroll tax cut and support for clean energy jobs.

He did not say how large the infrastructure spending proposal would be. In 2009, President Barack Obama won enactment of an $814 billion economic stimulus that Republicans opposed as wasteful spending.

The aide said the White House appeared to support extending the current payroll tax cut for employees, although there has been discussion on Capitol Hill of also expanding that tax cut to employers.

Biden is to return to the Senate on Wednesday for another meeting with the bipartisan group of lawmakers looking for ways to significantly reduce deficits. A deep cut in spending -- in the neighborhood of $4 trillion over a decade -- is a Republican requirement for allowing a vote to increase U.S. borrowing authority that is hitting up against a $14.3 trillion limit.

The group is facing an August 2 deadline for resolving the debt limit problem and thinks that it needs to make some decisions within the next few days in order to give the Senate and House of Representatives enough time to write and pass spending cut and debt limit legislation.

Durbin told reporters he thought that effort could become a "two-step" process containing a "serious down payment on the deficit" followed by more work on long-term savings.

"We're just not going to be able to accomplish (all of) it by August 2," Durbin said.

The Biden group has aimed to raise borrowing authority by enough to get through 2012 and next year's presidential and congressional elections.

"I hope Vice President Biden can get an agreement that takes us through the election. I don't know if he can," Durbin said.

(Editing by Jackie Frank)

View the original article here

订阅：博文 (Atom)