“This was a prank. We are loath to treat it as more, but we are relying on professional advice.” — DAVE ARNOLD, spokesman for Rep. Anthony Weiner, after a sexually charged photo was posted to the congressman’s Twitter account; Weiner says his account was hacked and is seeking legal advice (via The Daily Caller)
Continue reading …
CBS's Erica Hill strongly hinted on Monday's Early Show that Sarah Palin's “extended flirtation…with running” for president and speaking only to Fox News to the detriment of the rest of the media would sour her with the voters. Hill asked former Mitt Romney aide Kevin Madden, ” Does any of this risk though rubbing voters the wrong way? ” The anchor brought on Madden and former Clinton spokesman Joe Lockhart to discuss the former Alaska governor and the rest of the possible and actual 2012 presidential field for the Republican Party. After the Republican strategist agreed to a large extent with Hill in his answer to this question, she turned to Lockhart for his left-of-center view: “From a Democratic standpoint, if Sarah Palin jumped into the race, how do you think that would work out for President Obama?” In reply, the former Clinton mouthpiece regurgitated a common liberal talking point about Palin: LOCKHART: Well, I think from a Democratic point of view, it's the best thing that could happen . The problem is that Sarah Palin sucks up all of the energy and the coverage. She's irresistible. She's like a walking reality TV show. You know, it's crazy, it's colorful, and the rest of the field- they're pretty serious men and women, and they- just like Donald Trump did for the first part of this, as we go into the second phase, they're going to struggle . You know, we're not talking about Tim Pawlenty this morning. We're not talking about Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman, I think, the people who really fight out this nomination, and that's a problem for them, and the White House just needs to sit back and watch. Later in the segment, Madden's role as a former aide seemed not so former, as he lauded his former boss's record, but also conceded that he wasn't a lock for the Republican nomination: MADDEN: Well, look, I think the fundamentals of this election are already framed around the economy. And Governor Romney has had the best record, I think, on the issue of the economy, given that he's had private sector experience, and he turned around Massachusetts when they were struggling with their economy . But that doesn't really mean that there's not going to be another event that can shift this back to national security or foreign policy, where another candidate may be able to showcase their profile. The full transcript of Erica Hill's segment with Kevin Madden and Joe Lockhart, which aired 9 minutes into the 7 am Eastern hour of Tuesday's Early Show: ERICA HILL: We want to turn now to the race for the White House and the most high-profile non-candidate for president right now. Sarah Palin is currently on her East Coast bus tour, making a stop in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania on Memorial Day, where she addressed the question everyone is asking: is she really considering taking the plunge? FORMER ALASKA GOVERNOR SARAH PALIN: I honestly don't know. It's still, you know, a matter of looking at the field and considering much. There truly is a lot to consider before you throw yourself out there in the name of service to the public because it's so all-consuming. HILL: Joining us now from Washington, Republican strategist Kevin Madden, a former Mitt Romney campaign aide, and Democratic strategist Joe Lockhart, who was White House press secretary under President Clinton. Good to have both of you with us this morning. Kevin, I'm going to start with you on the Sarah Palin question because we have to ask it. It's this extended flirtation, you might almost call it, with running. The only media, too, she wants to speak to is her employer, Fox News. Does any of this risk though rubbing voters the wrong way? KEVIN MADDEN: Well, it doesn't fit the 'seems like you're not running' because you want to be president and you're not running because you're- you want to be a serious candidate. Instead, you're using a presidential campaign as a vehicle to build a little bit more of a profile as a celebrity, or somebody who's going to be on TV- somebody's who's going to be selling books and giving speeches. That tends to rub voters the wrong way, because, right now, they feel like there are very big challenges, and they think that the candidates that they want to see on the campaign trail are the ones who are really dealing and very acutely focused on the substance of problems or substance of challenges that we face as Americans. So it could turn off a lot of voters who are really looking at this race that's framed around the big issues. HILL: Joe, Kevin laid out some of the challenges from the Republican standpoint there. From a Democratic standpoint, if Sarah Palin jumped into the race, how do you think that would work out for President Obama? JOE LOCKHART: Well, I think from a Democratic point of view, it's the best thing that could happen. The problem is that Sarah Palin sucks up all of the energy and the coverage. She's irresistible. She's like a walking reality TV show. You know, it's crazy, it's colorful, and the rest of the field- they're pretty serious men and women, and they- just like Donald Trump did for the first part of this, as we go into the second phase, they're going to struggle. You know, we're not talking about Tim Pawlenty this morning. We're not talking about Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman, I think, the people who really fight out this nomination, and that's a problem for them, and the White House just needs to sit back and watch. HILL: So Kevin, looking at that, throwing out a few names there, including Mitt Romney, who, as we mentioned, you worked for in the last campaign, who should we be paying attention to this morning in the Republican field? MADDEN: Well, I think those top three, I think, are the ones that have the organization. They seem to have the compelling argument for many of the voters in the early primary states. Governor Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Jon Huntsman- I think those are the folks that seem to be taking the most concrete steps toward building real serious campaigns and real serious candidacies in those early states like Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and onward. But then you have another group of folks who have national name identification, like Newt Gingrich, who are also very serious with voters and are taking, you know, making the- taking the right organizational steps to compete in these early primary states. HILL: They may be more serious, but Romney has that massive war chest he's been amassing, as we know, Joe. But Jon Huntsman, in many ways it would seem, could appeal the most to independents. Is he, perhaps, the biggest threat to the White House? LOCKHART: Well, listen, it's hard to know because all of this is on paper now. I think if you look at the last couple of primaries, it's the person who got hot at the end, to use a sports metaphor- John Kerry in 2004, John McCain in 2008, who both rebuilt from, you know, disastrous starts. So I wouldn't count anybody out, and I think Huntsman may be the one who, because he's not well known and if he keeps a general low profile between now and, say, you know, post-Thanksgiving, could be the hot ticket. You want to be the hot candidate, the 'it' candidate as you go into Iowa and New Hampshire, and not the one who was talked about six months earlier. HILL: Kevin, given that and how difficult it can be to upset any incumbent, who do you think has the best chance of being that hot, 'it' candidate? MADDEN: Well, look, I think the fundamentals of this election are already framed around the economy. And Governor Romney has had the best record, I think, on the issue of the economy, given that he's had private sector experience, and he turned around Massachusetts when they were struggling with their economy. But that doesn't really mean that there's not going to be another event that can shift this back to national security or foreign policy, where another candidate may be able to showcase their profile. And then, also, I think these candidates have enough time to build up, you know, an argument in the early primary states with Republican voters that they can also be a very serious nominee and they can win- they could take the nomination in the end. So, I will say the one thing that's defining this electorate right now is its volatility. There's been twenty point swings on issues, twenty point swings on candidates. So it's going to be- that's why we have these primaries. (Hill laughs) That's the process that really starts to produce the best nominee. HILL: All right. So what you're saying is no name is appearing in your crystal ball this morning? (laughs) MADDEN: No, no. It is not a- it's definitely not- this field is very unsettled right now. HILL: The good news is is it gives us lots to talk about in the coming weeks- MADDEN: Absolutely- HILL: Kevin Madden and Joe Lockhart, thank you both this morning. LOCKHART: Thanks. MADDEN: Nice to be with you.
Continue reading …Rush Limbaugh wonders if riots aren’t part of the Obama administration’s “Grand Plan” for the US economy, since he says they are trying to kill the economy. Does that remind you of someone who’s leaving Fox? Limbaugh: inaudible Whadda ya got riots and things happening out there with poets and other people. Long hot summer schedule, and I’m not sure that’s not part of the grand plan. The more unrest and chaos there is out there the more the government will be called on to fix it. Same old thing. I seem to remember a certain summer that had near riots, violence, hate and unrest during the health care town halls and not a peep out of Rush Limbaugh that that was in fact Obama’s plan all along or for the government to stop it. Wisconsin’s response to Gov. Scott Walker’s anti-union legislation has the right wing nervous because other states are also experiencing buyers’ remorse over who they elected, as we’ve been covering on C&L. Polling is coming out every day backing up those concerns. Matt Yglesias: ThinkProgress has done a lot of coverage of controversial policy measures being inaugurated around the country by the new breed of Republican governors elected last fall due to the recession. And according to survey data from Margie Omero at Public Policy Polling, the voters in most of these states (though not all, Nevada’s an exception) aren’t liking the cocktail of budget cuts, union-busting, anti-abortion laws, etc. Polls show voters in battleground states regret having voted for their new Republican Governors. Since February, Democratic firm PPP released surveys in eight states asking voters “if you could do last fall’s election for Governor over again, how would you vote?” In seven of the eight, the Democrat now would win, with all seven showing double-digit improvements in their margin. (Only Rory Reid in Nevada still trails.) The chart below shows both the actual 2010 margin and the new margin, sorted by the shift. John Kasich, one of the first Fox News pundits to get a job from the Roger Ailes-led Tea Party movement, has the worst showing of all the new Governors at this moment in time. As MM notes, Limbaugh’s having a Beck moment.
Continue reading …
Is this just plain incompetence, or is Gov. Soylent Green making yet another one of his wingnutty libertarian points? Whatever the explanation, I’m sure it’s just fine. It’s not as if there are any sick or elderly people in Florida anyway! enlarge Gov. Rick Scott continues on his merry wingnut way. It’s not as if there are actual people attached to his policy choices! In March, Gov. Rick Scott’s staff said he would accept a $35.7 million “Money Follows the Person” federal health grant. But the Legislature appears to have decided otherwise. In the 2011-12 budget Scott just signed, lawmakers failed to give the Agency for Health Care Administration budget authority to draw down and spend the money. Patient advocates were dismayed at the omission, because the money was to have been spent on home- and community-care programs that let disabled and elderly people move out of nursing homes or avoid them in the first place. The likely reason seems to be that Scott wants to throw a monkey wrench into the implementation of the Patient Protections and Affordable Care Act: Questions sent to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services press office today drew an unusually cryptic response: “We continue working closely with states to ensure the benefits of more affordable, quality health care choices are available to all consumers.” Patient advocates say the grant money would have served the interests of both taxpayers and patients by keeping patients in the community and out of nursing homes – and letting some who are already in nursing homes be released to less-confining, less-expensive residential care. “You end up spending a ton of money…in long-term care” that could be avoided, said Dave Bruns, communications manager for Florida AARP. McRay and Bruns said they weren’t sure whether the omission was an oversight or a deliberate cut for a program that was re-authorized under the 2010 health law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Florida is leading a multistate challenge of the law in federal court, saying that it’s unconstitutional because it requires all Americans to obtain health coverage or pay a penalty.
Continue reading …
Is this just plain incompetence, or is Gov. Soylent Green making yet another one of his wingnutty libertarian points? Whatever the explanation, I’m sure it’s just fine. It’s not as if there are any sick or elderly people in Florida anyway! enlarge Gov. Rick Scott continues on his merry wingnut way. It’s not as if there are actual people attached to his policy choices! In March, Gov. Rick Scott’s staff said he would accept a $35.7 million “Money Follows the Person” federal health grant. But the Legislature appears to have decided otherwise. In the 2011-12 budget Scott just signed, lawmakers failed to give the Agency for Health Care Administration budget authority to draw down and spend the money. Patient advocates were dismayed at the omission, because the money was to have been spent on home- and community-care programs that let disabled and elderly people move out of nursing homes or avoid them in the first place. The likely reason seems to be that Scott wants to throw a monkey wrench into the implementation of the Patient Protections and Affordable Care Act: Questions sent to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services press office today drew an unusually cryptic response: “We continue working closely with states to ensure the benefits of more affordable, quality health care choices are available to all consumers.” Patient advocates say the grant money would have served the interests of both taxpayers and patients by keeping patients in the community and out of nursing homes – and letting some who are already in nursing homes be released to less-confining, less-expensive residential care. “You end up spending a ton of money…in long-term care” that could be avoided, said Dave Bruns, communications manager for Florida AARP. McRay and Bruns said they weren’t sure whether the omission was an oversight or a deliberate cut for a program that was re-authorized under the 2010 health law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Florida is leading a multistate challenge of the law in federal court, saying that it’s unconstitutional because it requires all Americans to obtain health coverage or pay a penalty.
Continue reading …
Is this just plain incompetence, or is Gov. Soylent Green making yet another one of his wingnutty libertarian points? Whatever the explanation, I’m sure it’s just fine. It’s not as if there are any sick or elderly people in Florida anyway! enlarge Gov. Rick Scott continues on his merry wingnut way. It’s not as if there are actual people attached to his policy choices! In March, Gov. Rick Scott’s staff said he would accept a $35.7 million “Money Follows the Person” federal health grant. But the Legislature appears to have decided otherwise. In the 2011-12 budget Scott just signed, lawmakers failed to give the Agency for Health Care Administration budget authority to draw down and spend the money. Patient advocates were dismayed at the omission, because the money was to have been spent on home- and community-care programs that let disabled and elderly people move out of nursing homes or avoid them in the first place. The likely reason seems to be that Scott wants to throw a monkey wrench into the implementation of the Patient Protections and Affordable Care Act: Questions sent to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services press office today drew an unusually cryptic response: “We continue working closely with states to ensure the benefits of more affordable, quality health care choices are available to all consumers.” Patient advocates say the grant money would have served the interests of both taxpayers and patients by keeping patients in the community and out of nursing homes – and letting some who are already in nursing homes be released to less-confining, less-expensive residential care. “You end up spending a ton of money…in long-term care” that could be avoided, said Dave Bruns, communications manager for Florida AARP. McRay and Bruns said they weren’t sure whether the omission was an oversight or a deliberate cut for a program that was re-authorized under the 2010 health law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Florida is leading a multistate challenge of the law in federal court, saying that it’s unconstitutional because it requires all Americans to obtain health coverage or pay a penalty.
Continue reading …Chris Matthews Links Dennis Kucinich to Churchill, Lebron James, Promises ‘Enthusiastic’ Coverage
May 31, 2011 No Comment
MSNBC's Chris Matthews on Tuesday could barely contain a tingle as he fawned over left-wing Congressman Dennis Kucinich, connecting the Representative to World War II hero Winston Churchill and NBA star Lebron James. Discussing the idea that Kucinich, who could be redistricted out of his Ohio seat, might move to Seattle and run there, the Hardball anchor offered a pledge of positive coverage: ” Let me make a promise to you. Should you make this incredible decision, we will be covering your campaign with enthusiasm. And that's a fact. “
Continue reading …FA chairman leads calls for Sepp Blatter to halt election and start Fifa reform
May 31, 2011 No Comment
David Bernstein seeks a ‘genuinely independent’ review of the scandal-hit governing body England and Scotland led the way in a brave but unlikely attempt to force reform at Fifa after the Football Association’s chairman, David Bernstein, called on Sepp Blatter to postpone Wednesday’s uncontested election for his fourth term as Fifa president. On another day of drama in Zurich, Bernstein issued a public declaration demanding the launch of a “genuinely independent” review of Fifa’s governance structures. Having kept the sports minister, Hugh Robertson, informed of his intentions, Bernstein made a plea for reform that was swiftly reinforced by the Scottish FA’s chief executive, Stewart Regan. “This is a matter of principle,” said Bernstein on Tuesday. “Myself and the FA believe that the position in Fifa is just not acceptable.” Despite Blatter’s defiance at Monday’s press conference, in which he insisted he would only be judged by the “Fifa family”, there is believed to be some backing for the measures in certain regions of the world. One influential football figure said the perspective of Bernstein, who has been at the FA for fewer than six months, is potentially refreshing for Fifa, an organisation that is apt to circle its wagons. With pockets of support in Africa, northern Europe and some other English-speaking nations, Bernstein may have set in train a chain of events that could deliver an embarrassing blow to Blatter’s standing among his peers. Whether that will translate into the votes required to change the agenda of the Fifa congress is highly questionable. There will be 205 voting national associations there on Wednesday and, under Fifa statutes, it will require the support of 153 other countries for Bernstein’s motion to be carried. Bernstein himself would not be drawn on what would constitute a moral victory for his campaign. “I am not judging this by mathematics; it is a good result already with the support we have from within the UK,” he said. “Sometimes you have to jump without knowing how solid the ground is.” With the Fifa vice-president, Jack Warner, and the former presidential challenger, Mohamed bin Hammam, reacting to their suspensions from all football activity with claims their bans were “politically motivated”, there is a risk of revenge against British interests. Bernstein remains unperturbed, knowing from the humiliation of England’s 2018 World Cup bid, which picked up only one non-English vote, that the nation that gave the game to the world is already on the sidelines of international football politics. “I don’t think we will get isolated and nor should we be,” he said. “[Fifa] is a democratic organisation and we should be able to express a minority or singular view. I do not believe that because a party takes a stance it should lead to retribution.” More of Fifa’s leading sponsors have also chosen to make public their reservations about the direction the organisation is taking. Visa and Emirates added to the sense of crisis at Fifa with statements on Tuesday. “The current situation is clearly not good for the game and we ask that Fifa take all necessary steps to resolve the concerns that have been raised,” said Visa. Emirates, Fifa’s airline partner, said: “Like all football fans around the world, [Emirates] is disappointed with the issues that are currently surrounding the administration of this sport.” Adidas and Coca-Cola had previously announced their displeasure with recent events. As one local newspaper published the results of a survey indicating that 86% of Blatter’s compatriots believe him to be “corrupt” – 7% more assess him as “a bit corrupt” – Switzerland’s president, Micheline Calmy-Rey, addressed the opening of the Fifa congress by saying: “Where there are concerns about corruption and transparency, it is necessary to listen and reform your governance.” Jacques Rogge, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) chairman, was more emollient before Fifa’s constituents. In 1998, coincidentally the year of Blatter’s first election as Fifa president, the IOC faced its own corruption scandal after members were found to have sold their votes in the host-nation decision for a winter Olympic Games. “Fifa is now facing allegations and controversies; 13 years ago we had to face the same ordeal in the Salt Lake City case,” was the message of solidarity from Rogge, while stressing he was speaking not as the IOC’s president but as a “lover of football.” He said: “The IOC however emerged a stronger organisation, and from within. We also had humility. I won’t point the finger or lecture you but I am sure Fifa also can emerge from within.” There were echoes of Bernstein’s calls from the global anti-corruption body, Transparency International. It demanded the introduction of an empowered, external ombudsman, as well as strengthened auditing measures. “Fifa delegates know that they must clean house if their vote is to have legitimacy,” said Transparency International’s Sylvia Schenk. However, Bernstein faced strong opposition from one of football’s grandees. The 95-year-old João Havelange spent 24 years as Fifa president and was Blatter’s mentor. He told Brazilian journalists: “Do you think they would do the same if there was an Englishman running alone for the presidency?” Fifa David Bernstein Sepp Blatter Jack Warner Mohamed bin Hammam Sport politics Switzerland Europe Matt Scott guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Open letter to Guardian suggests changes to welfare system are having ‘devastating’ impact, driving some to suicide attempts The government’s changes to the welfare system are having a “devastating” impact on hundreds of thousands of people with mental health problems and have driven some of the most vulnerable to try to take their own lives, according to charities and medical experts. A letter published in Wednesday’s Guardian brands the government’s drive to reassess 1.5 million people receiving incapacity benefit as “deeply flawed” and warns that the rapid pace of change is having dire consequences. “We’ve found that the prospect of incapacity benefit reassessment is causing huge amounts of distress and tragically there have already been cases where people have taken their own life following problems with changes to their benefits,” the letter, signed by leading mental health charities and a senior consultant from the Royal College of Psychiatrists, states. “We are hugely worried that the benefits system is heading in a direction which will put people with mental health problems under even more pressure and scrutiny, at a time when they are already being hit in other areas such as cuts to services.” In April the government began to send out 7,000 letters a week asking people to attend a “work capability assessment”. It is now sending out more than 11,000 reassessment requests and the first interviews will take place this month. Critics say the test is not sophisticated enough to identify the challenges faced by people with mental health problems and warn that the process is increasing the pressure on those already suffering high levels of anxiety and stress. A recent study for the mental health charity Mind found that three-quarters of people it surveyed said the prospect of a work capability assessment had made their mental health worse and 51% said it had left them with suicidal thoughts. The survey, which polled more than 300 people claiming incapacity benefit, found that 95% thought they would not be believed at their assessment. “It is extremely worrying that so many people are so concerned,” said Paul Farmer, the charity’s chief executive. “Many of these people have been out of work for many years and are frightened by the prospect of being reassessed for something that makes a massive difference to their lives.” Farmer signed the letter alongside Paul Jenkins, chief executive of Rethink Mental Illness, Professor Bob Grove, joint chief executive of the Centre for Mental Health, and Jed Boardman, consultant and senior lecturer in social psychiatry, of the Royal College of Psychiatrists. The work capability assessment was introduced for new claimants of the employment support allowance in 2008 but critics are increasingly concerned that it will be used to reassess the first wave of incapacity benefit claimants from June. Liz Woollard, 48, who suffers from depression and anxiety, says she failed the test despite two GPs, a psychiatrist and a senior nurse stating she was not able to work. Following a 54-minute assessment, Woollard says she was turned down for employment support allowance. The subsequent report stated she “did not appear to be trembling … sweating … or making rocking movements”. “It was a couple of weeks before Christmas and I had been out for a Christmas lunch with some friends and they made a lot of that … They did not have any sympathy or understanding of mental health issues. In that fortnight I had a major depressive episode that left me in bed for three days [but] they virtually brushed over that … In the written report they didn’t mention that – they focused instead on the Christmas lunch I had managed to attend.” Woollard, 46, appealed but had to wait 11 months for her case to be heard and the decision overturned. She has now been told that she will have to be reassessed again. Julie Tipping, an appeals officer for the charity Disability Solutions, said Woollard’s case was not unusual. She said many people with mental health problems had had their benefits cancelled and appealed successfully, only to be told their case needed to be reassessed again. “This is having a devastating impact on people with mental health issues,” said Tipping. “It is a constant reassessment process which is just absolutely relentless. It is almost like they want to assess you to death or reassess you until you can’t face it any longer and drop out of the system altogether. It is like a deliberate grinding down process. It is devastating to see.” Tipping said that in the last year, two of her clients had made “real attempts” at suicide after a decision that they were fit for work. Both were taken to hospital and subsequently sectioned. “These were really serious attempts, not cries for help, these were people who had just had enough and this was the final straw for them … do we really need to wait to such a stage where people are trying to throw themselves from a bridge before somebody listens to how chronically affected they are by their condition? Is that the kind of society we want to live in?” The government says it is committed to ensuring the work capability assessment is “as fair and accurate as possible” adding that it has accepted the recommendations of an independent review by Professor Malcolm Harrington last year. “[We] have already put in place his recommendation to create a network of ‘mental health, intellectual and cognitive champions’ in each … medical examination centre to spread best practice and build understanding of these conditions,” said a spokesman for the Department for Work and Pensions. “In consultation with charities including Mind, Professor Harrington is now looking at the way mental health is assessed in the work capability assessment and we look forward to receiving his recommendations later this year.” Mental health Disability Health Public sector cuts Public finance Unemployment Welfare Matthew Taylor John Domokos guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Despite Republican challenges, six Wisconsin State Senators will be challenged in recall elections. Today the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board approved three more recalls. Via Wisconsin State Journal : State election officials have cleared the way for three more GOP state senators to face recall elections, meaning six senators will almost certainly have to defend their seats. Republicans had challenged recall petitions against Sens. Robert Cowles, Alberta Darling and Sheila Harsdorf. On Tuesday, the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board tossed out most of the challenges. The senators still have the option of challenging the board’s decision in court. Otherwise they’ll face recall elections in the next few months. Three Democrats may also face recalls, but the final decision hasn’t yet been made on them, largely because many of the signatures were gathered by professional petition gatherers from out of state and are under challenge by Wisconsin Democrats. Greg Sargent : Meanwhile, the board has also announced that they are not prepared to approve the signatures gathered by Republicans for the recall of their three Democratic targets. Dems have alleged that the signature gathering by Republicans is fraudulent, and now the board has explicitly claimed that their reason for not approving the recall elections against Dems is that the signatures “have raised numerous factual and legal issues which need to be investigated and analyzed.” Translation: The fraud allegations just may have something to them. What a surprise.
Continue reading …