Armchairrealist.com

NEW ORLEANS — State investigators raided ACORN offices on Friday, taking away computer hard drives and documents as part of a probe into alleged embezzlement and tax fraud when the organization’s national headquarters was based in New Orleans.

“This is an investigation of everything – ACORN, the national organization, the local organization and all of its affiliated entities, specifically as it relates to any potential violations of Louisiana law,” Assistant Attorney General David Caldwell said.

ACORN staff on the scene declined to comment, but an attorney for the group said in a statement the raid was prompted by allegations that former ACORN employees had removed or altered electronic documents and may do so in the future.

Attorney Pamela Marple said ACORN was cooperating and called the raid exhaustive, saying investigators wanted “virtually every document in the possession of ACORN and any related entity.”

The raid was the latest development for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Videotapes released recently showed ACORN employees offering tax advice to two people in Baltimore posing as a prostitute and her pimp. The videos led Congress and state governments to cut funding for ACORN.

State prosecutors said their probe into the New Orleans offices stemmed from allegations made last year by board members involving embezzlement at ACORN nearly a decade ago.

ACORN last year settled an internal dispute and a lawsuit involving accusations that Dale Rathke, the brother of the group’s founder, Wade Rathke, made around $948,000 in improper credit card charges in 1999 and 2000. The Rathke family and a donor repaid the money and no charges were ever brought.

Last month, Attorney General Buddy Caldwell, the father of David Caldwell, said he would step up an investigation into allegations that the embezzlement may have been as high as $5 million.

ACORN said the $5 million figure was “a worst-case scenario” for what the embezzlement potentially could cost the group.

For 33 years, ACORN’s national headquarters was based in New Orleans after Wade Rathke moved here in the 1970s from Little Rock, Ark., where he started the organization. The embezzlement scandal led the organization to move its headquarters to Washington, D.C., earlier this year, a move that allowed the national organization to distance itself from the Rathkes.

David Caldwell said he did not know which former ACORN employees removed the computers.

“We’re going to grab the stuff, make copies,” he said, “and get it all back to them so whatever entities are doing business with them are able to do so.”

___

Associated Press writer Janet McConnaughey contributed to this report.

NEW ORLEANS — State investigators raided ACORN offices on Friday, taking away computer hard drives and documents as part of a probe into alleged embezzlement and tax fraud when the organization’s national headquarters was based in New Orleans.

“This is an investigation of everything – ACORN, the national organization, the local organization and all of its affiliated entities, specifically as it relates to any potential violations of Louisiana law,” Assistant Attorney General David Caldwell said.

ACORN staff on the scene declined to comment, but an attorney for the group said in a statement the raid was prompted by allegations that former ACORN employees had removed or altered electronic documents and may do so in the future.

Attorney Pamela Marple said ACORN was cooperating and called the raid exhaustive, saying investigators wanted “virtually every document in the possession of ACORN and any related entity.”

The raid was the latest development for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Videotapes released recently showed ACORN employees offering tax advice to two people in Baltimore posing as a prostitute and her pimp. The videos led Congress and state governments to cut funding for ACORN.

State prosecutors said their probe into the New Orleans offices stemmed from allegations made last year by board members involving embezzlement at ACORN nearly a decade ago.

ACORN last year settled an internal dispute and a lawsuit involving accusations that Dale Rathke, the brother of the group’s founder, Wade Rathke, made around $948,000 in improper credit card charges in 1999 and 2000. The Rathke family and a donor repaid the money and no charges were ever brought.

Last month, Attorney General Buddy Caldwell, the father of David Caldwell, said he would step up an investigation into allegations that the embezzlement may have been as high as $5 million.

ACORN said the $5 million figure was “a worst-case scenario” for what the embezzlement potentially could cost the group.

For 33 years, ACORN’s national headquarters was based in New Orleans after Wade Rathke moved here in the 1970s from Little Rock, Ark., where he started the organization. The embezzlement scandal led the organization to move its headquarters to Washington, D.C., earlier this year, a move that allowed the national organization to distance itself from the Rathkes.

David Caldwell said he did not know which former ACORN employees removed the computers.

“We’re going to grab the stuff, make copies,” he said, “and get it all back to them so whatever entities are doing business with them are able to do so.”

___

Associated Press writer Janet McConnaughey contributed to this report.

NEW ORLEANS — State investigators raided ACORN offices on Friday, taking away computer hard drives and documents as part of a probe into alleged embezzlement and tax fraud when the organization’s national headquarters was based in New Orleans.

“This is an investigation of everything – ACORN, the national organization, the local organization and all of its affiliated entities, specifically as it relates to any potential violations of Louisiana law,” Assistant Attorney General David Caldwell said.

ACORN staff on the scene declined to comment, but an attorney for the group said in a statement the raid was prompted by allegations that former ACORN employees had removed or altered electronic documents and may do so in the future.

Attorney Pamela Marple said ACORN was cooperating and called the raid exhaustive, saying investigators wanted “virtually every document in the possession of ACORN and any related entity.”

The raid was the latest development for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Videotapes released recently showed ACORN employees offering tax advice to two people in Baltimore posing as a prostitute and her pimp. The videos led Congress and state governments to cut funding for ACORN.

State prosecutors said their probe into the New Orleans offices stemmed from allegations made last year by board members involving embezzlement at ACORN nearly a decade ago.

ACORN last year settled an internal dispute and a lawsuit involving accusations that Dale Rathke, the brother of the group’s founder, Wade Rathke, made around $948,000 in improper credit card charges in 1999 and 2000. The Rathke family and a donor repaid the money and no charges were ever brought.

Last month, Attorney General Buddy Caldwell, the father of David Caldwell, said he would step up an investigation into allegations that the embezzlement may have been as high as $5 million.

ACORN said the $5 million figure was “a worst-case scenario” for what the embezzlement potentially could cost the group.

For 33 years, ACORN’s national headquarters was based in New Orleans after Wade Rathke moved here in the 1970s from Little Rock, Ark., where he started the organization. The embezzlement scandal led the organization to move its headquarters to Washington, D.C., earlier this year, a move that allowed the national organization to distance itself from the Rathkes.

David Caldwell said he did not know which former ACORN employees removed the computers.

“We’re going to grab the stuff, make copies,” he said, “and get it all back to them so whatever entities are doing business with them are able to do so.”

___

Associated Press writer Janet McConnaughey contributed to this report.

SANTA FE, N.M. — A top official in Gov. Bill Richardson’s cabinet has resigned over a drunken driving arrest just days after she was appointed to a spot in President Barack Obama’s administration.

Secretary of Aging and Long-Term Services Cindy Padilla submitted her resignation on Oct. 26. The governor’s chief of staff requested the resignation because the administration has a zero tolerance policy for drunken driving, according to a Richardson spokeswoman.

In late October, Padilla was named principal deputy assistant secretary in the Administration on Aging, which is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. She was to start Nov. 16, but that has been postponed at her request, department spokeswoman Vicki Rivas-Vazquez said Friday. No new start date has been set.

Padilla resigned her state cabinet post two days after Santa Fe police arrested her on drunken driving charges.

According to a police arrest report, Padilla’s chemical breath tests showed a blood-alcohol level of .08 percent and .07 percent. New Mexico’s standard for presumed intoxication is .08 percent.

Padilla earned $105,000 a year as head of the Aging and Long-Term Services Department, according to state records.

Michael Spanier is serving as acting department secretary.

SANTA FE, N.M. — A top official in Gov. Bill Richardson’s cabinet has resigned over a drunken driving arrest just days after she was appointed to a spot in President Barack Obama’s administration.

Secretary of Aging and Long-Term Services Cindy Padilla submitted her resignation on Oct. 26. The governor’s chief of staff requested the resignation because the administration has a zero tolerance policy for drunken driving, according to a Richardson spokeswoman.

In late October, Padilla was named principal deputy assistant secretary in the Administration on Aging, which is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. She was to start Nov. 16, but that has been postponed at her request, department spokeswoman Vicki Rivas-Vazquez said Friday. No new start date has been set.

Padilla resigned her state cabinet post two days after Santa Fe police arrested her on drunken driving charges.

According to a police arrest report, Padilla’s chemical breath tests showed a blood-alcohol level of .08 percent and .07 percent. New Mexico’s standard for presumed intoxication is .08 percent.

Padilla earned $105,000 a year as head of the Aging and Long-Term Services Department, according to state records.

Michael Spanier is serving as acting department secretary.

SANTA FE, N.M. — A top official in Gov. Bill Richardson’s cabinet has resigned over a drunken driving arrest just days after she was appointed to a spot in President Barack Obama’s administration.

Secretary of Aging and Long-Term Services Cindy Padilla submitted her resignation on Oct. 26. The governor’s chief of staff requested the resignation because the administration has a zero tolerance policy for drunken driving, according to a Richardson spokeswoman.

In late October, Padilla was named principal deputy assistant secretary in the Administration on Aging, which is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. She was to start Nov. 16, but that has been postponed at her request, department spokeswoman Vicki Rivas-Vazquez said Friday. No new start date has been set.

Padilla resigned her state cabinet post two days after Santa Fe police arrested her on drunken driving charges.

According to a police arrest report, Padilla’s chemical breath tests showed a blood-alcohol level of .08 percent and .07 percent. New Mexico’s standard for presumed intoxication is .08 percent.

Padilla earned $105,000 a year as head of the Aging and Long-Term Services Department, according to state records.

Michael Spanier is serving as acting department secretary.

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama spent nearly two hours visiting wounded U.S. soldiers Friday afternoon.

The president met with 19 soldiers being treated at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, as well as the families of three soldiers in intensive care, and hospital staff. He also awarded two Purple Hearts.

The president’s visit came a day after an Army psychiatrist who once trained at Walter Reed hospital allegedly killed 13 people at Fort Hood. The White House says the hospital visit was planned before the shootings.

Friday’s visit was Obama’s first to Walter Reed since taking office, though he visited as a presidential candidate.

(This version CORRECTS to Walter Reed Army Medical Center.)

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama spent nearly two hours visiting wounded U.S. soldiers Friday afternoon.

The president met with 19 soldiers being treated at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, as well as the families of three soldiers in intensive care, and hospital staff. He also awarded two Purple Hearts.

The president’s visit came a day after an Army psychiatrist who once trained at Walter Reed hospital allegedly killed 13 people at Fort Hood. The White House says the hospital visit was planned before the shootings.

Friday’s visit was Obama’s first to Walter Reed since taking office, though he visited as a presidential candidate.

(This version CORRECTS to Walter Reed Army Medical Center.)

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama spent nearly two hours visiting wounded U.S. soldiers Friday afternoon.

The president met with 19 soldiers being treated at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, as well as the families of three soldiers in intensive care, and hospital staff. He also awarded two Purple Hearts.

The president’s visit came a day after an Army psychiatrist who once trained at Walter Reed hospital allegedly killed 13 people at Fort Hood. The White House says the hospital visit was planned before the shootings.

Friday’s visit was Obama’s first to Walter Reed since taking office, though he visited as a presidential candidate.

(This version CORRECTS to Walter Reed Army Medical Center.)

Barcelona was supposed to bring hints of what’s to come in December at the United Nations Climate Conference in Copenhagen. A world seeking sanity.

Of course the stories would be rich, the perplexities deep. Keith Schneider, our colleague and Circle of Blue senior editor, has covered climate for 30 years for the New York Times and others. He was present at the first Washington hearings with James Hansen and he follows the talks today with a keen eye.

From Barcelona, he’s filed two pivotal reports. Most recent first, he wraps up the Barcelona talks as the conference comes to a close and U.S. legislation remains at a standstill. And earlier this week he advanced a story that left water experts apoplectic and wondering why, somewhere between Bangkok and Spain, every reference to water was pulled from the negotiating texts.

Climate Treaty Will Come after CoP-15
BARCELONA  – It’s been 30 years since scientists first gained a clear understanding of the dangerous consequences of continuously adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. This week during the five days of negotiations in Barcelona the world learned again that the formula for solving global warming is a diplomatic chemistry problem that still defies a solution.

The problem has less to do with the regulatory and financial ingredients of a successful climate treaty formula, though they are complex and formidable, and much more to do with raw ideological differences, national rivalries and even competing human emotions. Urgency and frustration marked the Barcelona talks. But so did new pleas for patience and trust.

Read full story

Water Drains From Climate Negotiations Documents
BARCELONA — Last month, when participants in Bangkok concluded another of the international negotiating sessions on climate change, a group of water policy specialists believed they were making progress. The Bangkok meeting concluded with the publication of a specialized report on the proceedings, known in United Nations’ language as Non-Paper 8, that included a number of statements about linking the global freshwater crisis to the climate crisis.

By directly joining the warming planet and its steadily melting, flooding, and drying landscape the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change was also taking the first steps to establishing common financial, policy and management solutions. The intent of the authors of Non-Paper 8 passage was clear: Fix the climate problem and a number of the planet’s big water problems would also be solved.

Read full story

Barcelona was supposed to bring hints of what’s to come in December at the United Nations Climate Conference in Copenhagen. A world seeking sanity.

Of course the stories would be rich, the perplexities deep. Keith Schneider, our colleague and Circle of Blue senior editor, has covered climate for 30 years for the New York Times and others. He was present at the first Washington hearings with James Hansen and he follows the talks today with a keen eye.

From Barcelona, he’s filed two pivotal reports. Most recent first, he wraps up the Barcelona talks as the conference comes to a close and U.S. legislation remains at a standstill. And earlier this week he advanced a story that left water experts apoplectic and wondering why, somewhere between Bangkok and Spain, every reference to water was pulled from the negotiating texts.

Climate Treaty Will Come after CoP-15
BARCELONA  – It’s been 30 years since scientists first gained a clear understanding of the dangerous consequences of continuously adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. This week during the five days of negotiations in Barcelona the world learned again that the formula for solving global warming is a diplomatic chemistry problem that still defies a solution.

The problem has less to do with the regulatory and financial ingredients of a successful climate treaty formula, though they are complex and formidable, and much more to do with raw ideological differences, national rivalries and even competing human emotions. Urgency and frustration marked the Barcelona talks. But so did new pleas for patience and trust.

Read full story

Water Drains From Climate Negotiations Documents
BARCELONA — Last month, when participants in Bangkok concluded another of the international negotiating sessions on climate change, a group of water policy specialists believed they were making progress. The Bangkok meeting concluded with the publication of a specialized report on the proceedings, known in United Nations’ language as Non-Paper 8, that included a number of statements about linking the global freshwater crisis to the climate crisis.

By directly joining the warming planet and its steadily melting, flooding, and drying landscape the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change was also taking the first steps to establishing common financial, policy and management solutions. The intent of the authors of Non-Paper 8 passage was clear: Fix the climate problem and a number of the planet’s big water problems would also be solved.

Read full story

Barcelona was supposed to bring hints of what’s to come in December at the United Nations Climate Conference in Copenhagen. A world seeking sanity.

Of course the stories would be rich, the perplexities deep. Keith Schneider, our colleague and Circle of Blue senior editor, has covered climate for 30 years for the New York Times and others. He was present at the first Washington hearings with James Hansen and he follows the talks today with a keen eye.

From Barcelona, he’s filed two pivotal reports. Most recent first, he wraps up the Barcelona talks as the conference comes to a close and U.S. legislation remains at a standstill. And earlier this week he advanced a story that left water experts apoplectic and wondering why, somewhere between Bangkok and Spain, every reference to water was pulled from the negotiating texts.

Climate Treaty Will Come after CoP-15
BARCELONA  – It’s been 30 years since scientists first gained a clear understanding of the dangerous consequences of continuously adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. This week during the five days of negotiations in Barcelona the world learned again that the formula for solving global warming is a diplomatic chemistry problem that still defies a solution.

The problem has less to do with the regulatory and financial ingredients of a successful climate treaty formula, though they are complex and formidable, and much more to do with raw ideological differences, national rivalries and even competing human emotions. Urgency and frustration marked the Barcelona talks. But so did new pleas for patience and trust.

Read full story

Water Drains From Climate Negotiations Documents
BARCELONA — Last month, when participants in Bangkok concluded another of the international negotiating sessions on climate change, a group of water policy specialists believed they were making progress. The Bangkok meeting concluded with the publication of a specialized report on the proceedings, known in United Nations’ language as Non-Paper 8, that included a number of statements about linking the global freshwater crisis to the climate crisis.

By directly joining the warming planet and its steadily melting, flooding, and drying landscape the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change was also taking the first steps to establishing common financial, policy and management solutions. The intent of the authors of Non-Paper 8 passage was clear: Fix the climate problem and a number of the planet’s big water problems would also be solved.

Read full story

On Friday, the U.S. Department of Labor announced that the national unemployment rate rose to 10.2 percent in the month of October, its highest point in 26 years.

Small business advocates like the American Small Business League (ASBL) believe the unemployment rate continues to soar because the Obama Administration’s economic stimulus plan has virtually ignored middle class firms.

Firms with 20 or fewer employees are responsible for over 97 percent of all net new jobs, according to the most recent U.S. Census Bureau data. http://www.inc.com/news/articles/200708/data.html To date the Obama Administration has awarded less than one percent of all funds allocated under the stimulus to those firms.

In February of 2008, President Obama released the statement, “It is time to end the diversion of federal small business contracts to corporate giants.” http://www.barackobama.com/2008/02/26/the_american_small_business_le.php The statement is based on a series of federal investigations, which have found that every year billions of dollars in federal small business contracts are diverted to some of the largest companies around the world. http://www.asbl.com/documentlibrary.html

The ASBL estimates that since President Obama took office over $100 billion in federal contracts were diverted to corporate giants around the world.

Despite pledging to address these issues, the Obama Administration has consistently refused to adopt any legislation or policy to solve the problem. Consequently, Fortune 500 firms like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, British Aerospace (BAE), Rolls Royce, and French giant Thales Communications continue to receive federal small business contracts. The most recent data released by the Obama Administration lists Fortune 500 corporation, Textron Inc. as the largest recipient of federal small business contracts. Textron has 43,000 employees.

If President Obama really wants to stimulate our nation’s economy and create new jobs, he needs to help pass H.R. 2568, the Fairness and Transparency in Contracting Act. H.R. 2568 offers the most efficient and cost effective method anyone has proposed to redirect federal infrastructure spending to small businesses. It would also solve the 10-year-old contracting scandal the Small Business Administration (SBA) Inspector General referred to as, ‘one of the most important challenges facing the small business administration and the entire federal government today.’

On Friday, the U.S. Department of Labor announced that the national unemployment rate rose to 10.2 percent in the month of October, its highest point in 26 years.

Small business advocates like the American Small Business League (ASBL) believe the unemployment rate continues to soar because the Obama Administration’s economic stimulus plan has virtually ignored middle class firms.

Firms with 20 or fewer employees are responsible for over 97 percent of all net new jobs, according to the most recent U.S. Census Bureau data. http://www.inc.com/news/articles/200708/data.html To date the Obama Administration has awarded less than one percent of all funds allocated under the stimulus to those firms.

In February of 2008, President Obama released the statement, “It is time to end the diversion of federal small business contracts to corporate giants.” http://www.barackobama.com/2008/02/26/the_american_small_business_le.php The statement is based on a series of federal investigations, which have found that every year billions of dollars in federal small business contracts are diverted to some of the largest companies around the world. http://www.asbl.com/documentlibrary.html

The ASBL estimates that since President Obama took office over $100 billion in federal contracts were diverted to corporate giants around the world.

Despite pledging to address these issues, the Obama Administration has consistently refused to adopt any legislation or policy to solve the problem. Consequently, Fortune 500 firms like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, British Aerospace (BAE), Rolls Royce, and French giant Thales Communications continue to receive federal small business contracts. The most recent data released by the Obama Administration lists Fortune 500 corporation, Textron Inc. as the largest recipient of federal small business contracts. Textron has 43,000 employees.

If President Obama really wants to stimulate our nation’s economy and create new jobs, he needs to help pass H.R. 2568, the Fairness and Transparency in Contracting Act. H.R. 2568 offers the most efficient and cost effective method anyone has proposed to redirect federal infrastructure spending to small businesses. It would also solve the 10-year-old contracting scandal the Small Business Administration (SBA) Inspector General referred to as, ‘one of the most important challenges facing the small business administration and the entire federal government today.’

On Friday, the U.S. Department of Labor announced that the national unemployment rate rose to 10.2 percent in the month of October, its highest point in 26 years.

Small business advocates like the American Small Business League (ASBL) believe the unemployment rate continues to soar because the Obama Administration’s economic stimulus plan has virtually ignored middle class firms.

Firms with 20 or fewer employees are responsible for over 97 percent of all net new jobs, according to the most recent U.S. Census Bureau data. http://www.inc.com/news/articles/200708/data.html To date the Obama Administration has awarded less than one percent of all funds allocated under the stimulus to those firms.

In February of 2008, President Obama released the statement, “It is time to end the diversion of federal small business contracts to corporate giants.” http://www.barackobama.com/2008/02/26/the_american_small_business_le.php The statement is based on a series of federal investigations, which have found that every year billions of dollars in federal small business contracts are diverted to some of the largest companies around the world. http://www.asbl.com/documentlibrary.html

The ASBL estimates that since President Obama took office over $100 billion in federal contracts were diverted to corporate giants around the world.

Despite pledging to address these issues, the Obama Administration has consistently refused to adopt any legislation or policy to solve the problem. Consequently, Fortune 500 firms like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, British Aerospace (BAE), Rolls Royce, and French giant Thales Communications continue to receive federal small business contracts. The most recent data released by the Obama Administration lists Fortune 500 corporation, Textron Inc. as the largest recipient of federal small business contracts. Textron has 43,000 employees.

If President Obama really wants to stimulate our nation’s economy and create new jobs, he needs to help pass H.R. 2568, the Fairness and Transparency in Contracting Act. H.R. 2568 offers the most efficient and cost effective method anyone has proposed to redirect federal infrastructure spending to small businesses. It would also solve the 10-year-old contracting scandal the Small Business Administration (SBA) Inspector General referred to as, ‘one of the most important challenges facing the small business administration and the entire federal government today.’

HACKENSACK, N.J. — A jury convicted a Florida man Friday of murdering his former son-in-law, rejecting the man’s defense that he was too fat to have run up and down a flight of stairs to commit the crime and make a quick getaway.

Edward Ates looked down and shook his head in court as he was found guilty of murder and weapons counts for killing Paul Duncsak, who was shot six times at his home in Ramsey, about 25 miles northwest of New York.

Ates’ “too fat to kill” defense provided an angle to the trial that attracted attention from the news media but didn’t sway the jury of eight women and four men, who reached a verdict on their second day of deliberations after a six-week trial.

Some of Duncsak’s family members cried softly after the verdict was read. Ate’s wife, Dottie, sobbed in the gallery as he was handcuffed and led away by court deputies.

“It doesn’t bring him back, but at least he won’t get away with it,” said Duncsak’s sister-in-law, Barbara Duncsak. “It’s satisfying. It was a long time coming.”

Ates had argued he didn’t have the energy to accurately shoot Duncsak from a perch on the staircase at Duncsak’s home in August 2006. He was 62 years old, 5-feet-8 and 285 pounds at the time of the murder.

Assistant Bergen County Prosecutor Wayne Mello termed Ates’ defense “nonsense” and credited dogged work by investigators, particularly Det. Sgt. Russ Christiana, that built a circumstantial case around cell phone records and computer forensics.

“This was a complicated case, and it was good old-fashioned police work combined with new technology,” Mello said.

Prosecutors contended Ates drove from Florida to New Jersey, climbed a staircase and shot the 40-year-old Duncsak, a pharmaceutical executive who was embroiled in a bitter custody dispute with Ates’ daughter after their divorce.

Ates then drove 21 hours to his mother’s house in Louisiana, prosecutors said. The last evidence the jurors reviewed in court on Friday was videotaped testimony from Ates’ sister in which she admitted that she lied to authorities about when he arrived in Louisiana, per his request.

Brenda Ates has already pleaded guilty to hindering prosecution and is not expected to get prison time when she is sentenced, Bergen County Prosecutor John Molinelli said Friday. Molinelli is proceeding with hindering charges against Ates’ wife and mother.

Prosecutors presented evidence at trial to show Ates bought books detailing how to build a gun silencer, did Internet searches on how to pick locks and how to commit the perfect murder.

Ates, meanwhile, testified at the trial that he often needed to take breaks while driving, implying that he wasn’t capable of making the drive to Louisiana.

In addition, Ates’ doctor testified that bounding up the stairs, as the killer was thought to have done, would have caused Ates to become short of breath and shake, making it difficult to keep his wrist straight enough to accurately fire a gun at someone from a distance.

Duncsak’s mother, Sophia, has said Ates became vengeful toward her son after Paul Duncsak refused to give Ates money to keep Ates’ struggling golf course in Okeechobee, Fla., afloat.

State Superior Court Judge Harry G. Carroll set sentencing for Dec. 17 and revoked Ates’ bail.

HACKENSACK, N.J. — A jury convicted a Florida man Friday of murdering his former son-in-law, rejecting the man’s defense that he was too fat to have run up and down a flight of stairs to commit the crime and make a quick getaway.

Edward Ates looked down and shook his head in court as he was found guilty of murder and weapons counts for killing Paul Duncsak, who was shot six times at his home in Ramsey, about 25 miles northwest of New York.

Ates’ “too fat to kill” defense provided an angle to the trial that attracted attention from the news media but didn’t sway the jury of eight women and four men, who reached a verdict on their second day of deliberations after a six-week trial.

Some of Duncsak’s family members cried softly after the verdict was read. Ate’s wife, Dottie, sobbed in the gallery as he was handcuffed and led away by court deputies.

“It doesn’t bring him back, but at least he won’t get away with it,” said Duncsak’s sister-in-law, Barbara Duncsak. “It’s satisfying. It was a long time coming.”

Ates had argued he didn’t have the energy to accurately shoot Duncsak from a perch on the staircase at Duncsak’s home in August 2006. He was 62 years old, 5-feet-8 and 285 pounds at the time of the murder.

Assistant Bergen County Prosecutor Wayne Mello termed Ates’ defense “nonsense” and credited dogged work by investigators, particularly Det. Sgt. Russ Christiana, that built a circumstantial case around cell phone records and computer forensics.

“This was a complicated case, and it was good old-fashioned police work combined with new technology,” Mello said.

Prosecutors contended Ates drove from Florida to New Jersey, climbed a staircase and shot the 40-year-old Duncsak, a pharmaceutical executive who was embroiled in a bitter custody dispute with Ates’ daughter after their divorce.

Ates then drove 21 hours to his mother’s house in Louisiana, prosecutors said. The last evidence the jurors reviewed in court on Friday was videotaped testimony from Ates’ sister in which she admitted that she lied to authorities about when he arrived in Louisiana, per his request.

Brenda Ates has already pleaded guilty to hindering prosecution and is not expected to get prison time when she is sentenced, Bergen County Prosecutor John Molinelli said Friday. Molinelli is proceeding with hindering charges against Ates’ wife and mother.

Prosecutors presented evidence at trial to show Ates bought books detailing how to build a gun silencer, did Internet searches on how to pick locks and how to commit the perfect murder.

Ates, meanwhile, testified at the trial that he often needed to take breaks while driving, implying that he wasn’t capable of making the drive to Louisiana.

In addition, Ates’ doctor testified that bounding up the stairs, as the killer was thought to have done, would have caused Ates to become short of breath and shake, making it difficult to keep his wrist straight enough to accurately fire a gun at someone from a distance.

Duncsak’s mother, Sophia, has said Ates became vengeful toward her son after Paul Duncsak refused to give Ates money to keep Ates’ struggling golf course in Okeechobee, Fla., afloat.

State Superior Court Judge Harry G. Carroll set sentencing for Dec. 17 and revoked Ates’ bail.

HACKENSACK, N.J. — A jury convicted a Florida man Friday of murdering his former son-in-law, rejecting the man’s defense that he was too fat to have run up and down a flight of stairs to commit the crime and make a quick getaway.

Edward Ates looked down and shook his head in court as he was found guilty of murder and weapons counts for killing Paul Duncsak, who was shot six times at his home in Ramsey, about 25 miles northwest of New York.

Ates’ “too fat to kill” defense provided an angle to the trial that attracted attention from the news media but didn’t sway the jury of eight women and four men, who reached a verdict on their second day of deliberations after a six-week trial.

Some of Duncsak’s family members cried softly after the verdict was read. Ate’s wife, Dottie, sobbed in the gallery as he was handcuffed and led away by court deputies.

“It doesn’t bring him back, but at least he won’t get away with it,” said Duncsak’s sister-in-law, Barbara Duncsak. “It’s satisfying. It was a long time coming.”

Ates had argued he didn’t have the energy to accurately shoot Duncsak from a perch on the staircase at Duncsak’s home in August 2006. He was 62 years old, 5-feet-8 and 285 pounds at the time of the murder.

Assistant Bergen County Prosecutor Wayne Mello termed Ates’ defense “nonsense” and credited dogged work by investigators, particularly Det. Sgt. Russ Christiana, that built a circumstantial case around cell phone records and computer forensics.

“This was a complicated case, and it was good old-fashioned police work combined with new technology,” Mello said.

Prosecutors contended Ates drove from Florida to New Jersey, climbed a staircase and shot the 40-year-old Duncsak, a pharmaceutical executive who was embroiled in a bitter custody dispute with Ates’ daughter after their divorce.

Ates then drove 21 hours to his mother’s house in Louisiana, prosecutors said. The last evidence the jurors reviewed in court on Friday was videotaped testimony from Ates’ sister in which she admitted that she lied to authorities about when he arrived in Louisiana, per his request.

Brenda Ates has already pleaded guilty to hindering prosecution and is not expected to get prison time when she is sentenced, Bergen County Prosecutor John Molinelli said Friday. Molinelli is proceeding with hindering charges against Ates’ wife and mother.

Prosecutors presented evidence at trial to show Ates bought books detailing how to build a gun silencer, did Internet searches on how to pick locks and how to commit the perfect murder.

Ates, meanwhile, testified at the trial that he often needed to take breaks while driving, implying that he wasn’t capable of making the drive to Louisiana.

In addition, Ates’ doctor testified that bounding up the stairs, as the killer was thought to have done, would have caused Ates to become short of breath and shake, making it difficult to keep his wrist straight enough to accurately fire a gun at someone from a distance.

Duncsak’s mother, Sophia, has said Ates became vengeful toward her son after Paul Duncsak refused to give Ates money to keep Ates’ struggling golf course in Okeechobee, Fla., afloat.

State Superior Court Judge Harry G. Carroll set sentencing for Dec. 17 and revoked Ates’ bail.

(AP) PROVO, Utah — A New Mexico soccer player has become an Internet celebrity for the wrong reasons.

Junior defender Elizabeth Lambert was suspended Friday for her infractions the day before during a 1-0 loss to BYU in a Mountain West Conference semifinal. Lambert is seen in video from the game throwing elbows, colliding with several players and then yanking the ponytail of a BYU player who went crashing to the ground.

“My actions were uncalled for,” Lambert said in a statement released by New Mexico. “I let my emotions get the best of me in a heated situation.”

Lambert’s actions brought unprecedented – and very unwanted – attention to the Mountain West women’s soccer tournament.

Video highlights have been airing nationally since Thursday night and not because it was a thrilling game decided on Carlee Payne’s header in the 31st minute. The focus of the highlights is more on Lambert’s physical play, especially her takedown of BYU’s Kassidy Shumway by grabbing her ponytail and pulling her backward.

New Mexico moved quickly to announce Friday that Lambert has been suspended indefinitely. The Mountain West followed with a statement commending the Lobos for acting promptly.

“Liz is a quality student-athlete, but in this instance her actions clearly crossed the line of fair play and good sportsmanship,” New Mexico coach Kit Vela said.

Lambert was the only player to be penalized in the game, getting a yellow card in the 77th minute for colliding with a BYU player who was driving toward the Lobos’ net. The highlights showed the game was physical in both directions, including an elbow to Lambert’s ribs by a BYU player during a dead ball.

Lambert responded with an elbow to the back, one of many regrettable plays she made in the game.

“This is in no way indicative of my character or the soccer player I am,” Lambert said in her apology. “I am sorry to my coaches and teammates for any and all damages I have brought upon them. I am especially sorry to BYU and the BYU women’s soccer players that were personally affected by my actions.”

(AP) PROVO, Utah — A New Mexico soccer player has become an Internet celebrity for the wrong reasons.

Junior defender Elizabeth Lambert was suspended Friday for her infractions the day before during a 1-0 loss to BYU in a Mountain West Conference semifinal. Lambert is seen in video from the game throwing elbows, colliding with several players and then yanking the ponytail of a BYU player who went crashing to the ground.

“My actions were uncalled for,” Lambert said in a statement released by New Mexico. “I let my emotions get the best of me in a heated situation.”

Lambert’s actions brought unprecedented – and very unwanted – attention to the Mountain West women’s soccer tournament.

Video highlights have been airing nationally since Thursday night and not because it was a thrilling game decided on Carlee Payne’s header in the 31st minute. The focus of the highlights is more on Lambert’s physical play, especially her takedown of BYU’s Kassidy Shumway by grabbing her ponytail and pulling her backward.

New Mexico moved quickly to announce Friday that Lambert has been suspended indefinitely. The Mountain West followed with a statement commending the Lobos for acting promptly.

“Liz is a quality student-athlete, but in this instance her actions clearly crossed the line of fair play and good sportsmanship,” New Mexico coach Kit Vela said.

Lambert was the only player to be penalized in the game, getting a yellow card in the 77th minute for colliding with a BYU player who was driving toward the Lobos’ net. The highlights showed the game was physical in both directions, including an elbow to Lambert’s ribs by a BYU player during a dead ball.

Lambert responded with an elbow to the back, one of many regrettable plays she made in the game.

“This is in no way indicative of my character or the soccer player I am,” Lambert said in her apology. “I am sorry to my coaches and teammates for any and all damages I have brought upon them. I am especially sorry to BYU and the BYU women’s soccer players that were personally affected by my actions.”

(AP) PROVO, Utah — A New Mexico soccer player has become an Internet celebrity for the wrong reasons.

Junior defender Elizabeth Lambert was suspended Friday for her infractions the day before during a 1-0 loss to BYU in a Mountain West Conference semifinal. Lambert is seen in video from the game throwing elbows, colliding with several players and then yanking the ponytail of a BYU player who went crashing to the ground.

“My actions were uncalled for,” Lambert said in a statement released by New Mexico. “I let my emotions get the best of me in a heated situation.”

Lambert’s actions brought unprecedented – and very unwanted – attention to the Mountain West women’s soccer tournament.

Video highlights have been airing nationally since Thursday night and not because it was a thrilling game decided on Carlee Payne’s header in the 31st minute. The focus of the highlights is more on Lambert’s physical play, especially her takedown of BYU’s Kassidy Shumway by grabbing her ponytail and pulling her backward.

New Mexico moved quickly to announce Friday that Lambert has been suspended indefinitely. The Mountain West followed with a statement commending the Lobos for acting promptly.

“Liz is a quality student-athlete, but in this instance her actions clearly crossed the line of fair play and good sportsmanship,” New Mexico coach Kit Vela said.

Lambert was the only player to be penalized in the game, getting a yellow card in the 77th minute for colliding with a BYU player who was driving toward the Lobos’ net. The highlights showed the game was physical in both directions, including an elbow to Lambert’s ribs by a BYU player during a dead ball.

Lambert responded with an elbow to the back, one of many regrettable plays she made in the game.

“This is in no way indicative of my character or the soccer player I am,” Lambert said in her apology. “I am sorry to my coaches and teammates for any and all damages I have brought upon them. I am especially sorry to BYU and the BYU women’s soccer players that were personally affected by my actions.”

I will explain that silly subtitle in a moment, but first we’ve got to delve even deeper into rampant silliness. If such silliness and unseriousness does not appeal to you, then I strongly suggest you skip down and begin reading with this week’s Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award. Consider yourselves warned.

This column today celebrates a milestone — triple digits on the odometer! That’s right, as hard as it may seem to believe, this is the one hundredth volume of your weekly Friday Talking Points column. For a little over two years now, we’ve brought you our thoughts on “the week that was in politics,” and for a little less time than that, we’ve announced our weekly winners of both the aforementioned MIDOTW as well as the ignominious Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week. And we wrap it all up with some practical, good old-fashioned, home-brewed Democratic spin, our Talking Points for the week ahead.

Initially, this concept met with some scorn. To some, “spin” and “talking points” are ugly words, which proper ladies and gentlemen don’t use. My feeling, however, is that Democrats are so woefully bad at getting their own message out — especially in the short, easy-to-digest soundbites to which the mainstream media is addicted — that I certainly couldn’t do any harm by making such suggestions, and indeed might do some good. It’s been enough to keep me going for 100 columns, and I see no sign of Democrats mastering the art of “framing” their subjects, so another 100 columns being necessary isn’t entirely outside the realm of possibility.

But enough back-patting and self-congratulating. Oh, wait, one more — if you’d like to hear what I sound like trying to talk politics at 8:30 in the morning, there’s a program note at the end of this with a link to a podcast interview I did today. If that sort of thing interests you, then check it out.

But I promised you some silliness, so silliness I will now provide. Whenever “100 episodes” comes to my mind, I can’t help but think of South Park. The war in Iraq began about three weeks before the 100th episode of South Park aired, and at the time there was virtually nothing but jingoistic pro-war opinions being voiced on television. South Park, known mostly for lowbrow (and, some say, conservative) political views, put their finger on the pulse of both the anti-war and pro-war positions at the time, and came up with a summation that seemed downright brilliant at the time, and still does.

I won’t go into too much detail of the plotline of this episode (you can read a transcript of it, if you’d like). Suffice it to say it had half the town protesting against the war, and half the town protesting in favor of the war. The kids were assigned a report on how the Founding Fathers themselves would view the Iraq war, which Eric Cartman tried to weasel out of by attempting to send himself into a “flashback” to the past. He finally succeeds, and is on hand for the Founding Fathers debating the Declaration of Independence in the Continental Congress, and the question of whether to go to war with England or not. Here’s the South Park take on how this debate went:

HANCOCK:  Mr. Franklin, where do you stand on the war issue?

FRANKLIN:  I believe that if we are to form a new country, we cannot be a country that appears war-hungry and violent to the rest of the world. However, we also cannot be a country that appears weak and unwilling to fight to the rest of the world. So, what if we form a country that appears to want both?

JEFFERSON:  Yes. Yes of course. We go to war, and protest going to war at the same time.

DICKINSON:  Right. If the people of our new country are allowed to do whatever they wish, then some will support the war and some will protest it.

FRANKLIN:  And that means that as a nation, we could go to war with whomever we wished, but at the same time, act like we didn’t want to. If we allow the people to protest what the government does, then the country will be forever blameless.

ADAMS:  [Holding a slice of chocolate cake] It’s like having your cake, and eating it, too.

CONGRESSMAN 2:  Think of it: an entire nation founded on saying one thing and doing another.

HANCOCK:  And we will call that country the United States of America.

Cartman returns from his flashback to find the town killing each other in a riot which happened because the mayor told the anti-war protesters and the pro-war protesters that they’d have to share the town park on the same day. Cartman, uncharacteristically, is the voice of reason which ends the town’s fighting, as he gives his report from the stage:

I learned something today. This country was founded by some of the smartest thinkers the world has ever seen. And they knew one thing: that a truly great country can go to war, and at the same time, act like it doesn’t want to. You people who are for the war, you need the protesters. Because they make the country look like it’s made of sane, caring individuals. And you people who are anti-war, you need these flag-wavers, because, if our whole country was made up of nothing but soft [expletive deleted] protesters, we’d get taken down in a second. That’s why the Founding Fathers decided we should have both. It’s called “having your cake and eating it too.”

But the true silliness is at the very end, when the two groups embrace each other and start singing Donny And Marie’s “Little Bit of Country/Little Bit of Rock and Roll,” and then get completely surreal. Which is a good way for us to open our column today.

EVERYBODY:  We’re a little bit country, and we’re a little bit rock-n-roll!

STUART:  We can be a nation that believe in war…

MR. MACKEY:  And still tells the world that we don’t.

EVERYBODY:  Let the flag for hypocrisy fly high from every pole! We’re a little bit country, and we’re a little bit rock-n-roll!

RANDY:  Well, goodnight everybody. It sure has been great bringing you a hundred episodes.

SKEETER:  We want to thank our guests, the pro-war people. [Applause] And the anti-war people. [Applause]

STAN:  [Mystified] What the Hell are they doing now?

KYLE:  [Covers his nose and shuts his eyes tight] Ah, I don’t know.

EVERYBODY:  For the war, against, the war, WHO CARES?? One hundred episodes!

KYLE:  I hate this town. Ah, I really, really do.

Now that we’ve got the silly and surreal out of our system, let’s just move on, shall we?

While Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi certainly made a bid for winning the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week by scheduling a debate on the healthcare reform bill in the House, she has not yet delivered. She did try an interesting tactic to try to speed things up, though. After getting her bill “scored” by the Congressional Budget Office, she posted it online for 72 hours, making good on an earlier promise to do so (which, it should be noted, the Republicans never bothered to do when they were in charge). But that meant the debate and vote was pushed out to Saturday. Congress in session on a weekend! You could have knocked me over with a feather when I heard that.

But Pelosi accomplished this by being crafty. Next week, the House was planning to take half the week off for Veterans’ Day — so Pelosi told everyone that they could have the full week off if they voted on the healthcare reform bill first. This is why our legislators will be in the chambers this weekend — to get extra vacation time next week! Which is fine, since (for once) they’ll actually deserve a few days off. But this maneuver flew under most people’s radar, which is also why it was a brilliant political tactic for Pelosi to employ. Now, rumors are flying today (including one which says the vote’s not going to happen until next week), so we’ll see what happens next week.

For this week, however, we’ve got to at least give Speaker Pelosi an Honorable Mention for moving things forward on healthcare reform.

But this week’s uncontested Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week is newly-minted Representative Bill Owens, of the twenty-third House district in the great state of New York. Owens captured NY-23 this Tuesday, winning a very strange race which was really an intra-Republican donnybrook. A moderate Republican was on the ticket, but so was an ultra-conservative backed by Sarah Palin and the rest of the usual suspects from the “Small Tent” faction of the Republican Party. The Republican dropped out of the race, and actually endorsed the Democrat, strangely enough. Who actually won — even stranger.

Now, the mainstream media mostly ignored this race, because it didn’t easily fit in their storyline of “Republican Revival!” But this district going Democratic is simply stunning. It also presages some interesting struggles for the direction of the Republican Party in next year’s primaries, which I wrote about yesterday.

But the truly jaw-dropping part of the story is that over a third of the district (with reapportionment, the district has changed boundaries over the years) has been represented by a Republican in the House of Representatives since before the Civil War. Part of the district has had a Republican representative since 1856 — when the Republican Party began. And in Franklin Country, the last non-Republican representing them in the House was named George Simmons… who was a member of the Whig Party.

The Swing State Project website has more details, if you’re interested. There are no districts which have remained Democratic (even partially) since the Civil War — there used to be a few in Texas, but Tom DeLay took care of that. There is still one district in Pennsylvania with as long a pedigree for the Republicans, but the news of NY-23 switching parties is truly groundshaking, one would think.

Unless one got their news from the mainstream media, of course. Sigh.

Anyway, we simply can’t think of a more impressive Democrat this week, or indeed a more impressive Democratic feat in quite a while. So this week’s MIDOTW voting wasn’t even close. Our hands-down Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week is none other than Bill Owens. Well done!

[Unfortunately, Representative-Elect Bill Owens does not have an official House webpage yet, so you'll have to wait a week or so to congratulate him.]

But enough of Republicans “Whigging out,” as it were (see, I told you I’d work that in…). Sadly, we must turn to our own disappointments this week. While the Democratic candidates for governor in New Jersey and Virginia were disappointing, this week we unfortunately have to return to an old standard for our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid really has got to go. I have said it before and I doubtlessly will say it again, but it is time for Senate Democrats to wake up and realize that the only thing Harry is “leading” them to is a possible disaster at the polls next year.

While activity and hopefulness was emanating from the House, with Pelosi moving healthcare reform one more step forward, Harry Reid may have killed the entire effort for the year over in the Senate. No, that’s not an exaggeration. Harry seems to think he’s got all the time in the world to get this done. In the summer, he attempted to talk tough about deadlines for Max Baucus, and deadlines for introducing the bill under budget reconciliation rules which only need 50 votes (instead of 60) — but such talk has apparently been long forgotten by Reid.

Reid’s office leaked this week that the Senate may not even bring a bill to the floor until December… or maybe not even this year. Perhaps next year, if they can find the time, who knows?

Reid clumsily attempted to walk this back later, by saying he shares Obama’s goal of getting it done this year, but it was pretty weak medicine indeed after his earlier statements.

Somebody please tie Harry to a chair so I can throw this bucket of cold water in his face: “Harry — if it doesn’t get done this year, it is not going to get done in an election year. And Harry, you don’t get the whole calendar to play around with. You have to schedule in some time for a conference committee between the houses after the Senate votes, or there will not be time to finish the bill.“

December, I would like to strongly remind Democrats, is the traditional month when the caucus votes on their leadership. This is the month when they replace people in positions like… oh, I don’t know… Senate Majority Leader, for instance. And any Senate Democrats frustrated by the pace of their leadership (which includes, by the way, committee chairs — I’m just saying…) need to start a whispering campaign in the cloakrooms of the Capitol that if healthcare reform fails by this December, then they will be voting some new leaders in for next year. Because, at this point, we simply don’t have time for the Nevada voters to chuck Reid out next year.

Maybe that’ll wake Harry up. It’s certainly worth a try.

For the record-shattering thirteenth time, we sadly must award Harry Reid the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week.

[Contact Harry Reid on his Senate contact page to let him know what you think of his actions.]

Volume 100 (11/6/09)

One hundred epsiodes! Woo hoo!

Sorry, I apologize, I dealt with that silliness earlier and it won’t happen again, I promise. Ahem.

We now turn to our Friday Talking Points for this week. I had notions of digging through the last 99 columns and presenting some sort of “best of” section here today, but sadly, it has been too busy a week politically, so we must forego such pleasures and offer up some commonsensical ways for Democrats to speak of what’s been going on of late. As always, the full archive of all 100 of these columns is available at fridaytalkingpoints.com (which I registered for those people who find it easier to spell than chrisweigant.com).

For those of you who are newcomers to this column and were drawn in by the number 100 beckoning you from the headline, welcome! The core of this column is presented weekly (some would say “weakly,” but we cheerfully ignore them, as always) in the hopes of providing some snappy one-liners to Democrats for the upcoming week.

Originally, this was solely for the purposes of Democratic officeholders who are scheduled to appear on Sunday chat shows, but I have found over the months that they work just as well talking to your strange cousin or uncle, or to the conservative you have to share an office with.

In other words, anyone can use them! Feel free! Try it today!

   Dachau? Really?

This one is just odious, I have to admit. Because this sort of thing shows up at political demonstrations more and more, but this wasn’t a rally or a demonstration, officially it was a “press conference” hosted by Representative Michele Bachmann, complete with lots and lots of Republicans standing on the stage and speaking from the podium. A photo of what I’m talking about is available at ThinkProgress, I should add. This should be used by any Democrat debating healthcare reform this weekend with any Republican, since even if they weren’t there, it is just as useful.

“Before we begin, I would like to denounce — and invite my colleague to equally denounce — whoever it was at the Republican ‘press conference’ earlier this week who saw fit to wave giant signs equating our efforts to provide affordable healthcare coverage to all Americans with a photograph of a pile of naked, dead bodies taken at the Dachau concentration camp. I think this sort of thing is despicable, I think it is a slap in the face to all Jewish people in America, and I think it deserves the strongest sort of condemnation, no matter what party you are from. I noticed that while this enormous sign was fully visible from the stage, not one of the speakers addressed it in any way whatsoever. I think that is shameful, and I invite my colleague to join me in denouncing such tactics.” (Turn to Republican you’re being interviewed with, at this point, and watch them squirm….)

   Good thing there was government healthcare available….

This one is a tightrope to walk, so as not to fall into a pit of glee over someone’s misfortune — but that should not stop anyone from pointing out the thick, thick irony of it all.

“You know, Dana Milbank of the Washington Post had a very interesting article the other day, where he pointed out the fact that during the Republican anti-government-healthcare rally someone suffered a heart attack and, quote, Medical personnel from the Capitol physician’s office — an entity that could, quite accurately, be labeled government-run health care — rushed over, attaching electrodes to his chest and giving him oxygen and an IV drip, unquote. Now, if this crowd was so morally against the concept of government healthcare, then by all rights they should have waited for a private-sector ambulance to arrive, and let the victim die in the meantime. But I noticed — just as I notice many in these crowds who seem to be Medicare-eligible — that they’re just fine with government healthcare for themselves, it is merely others they do not wish to extend the privilege to. I find this ironic, personally.”

   We need some stronger candidates

This week’s election results are going to be a major subject this weekend. So Democrats have got to be ready to talk about the lessons learned.

“I think that what New Jersey and Virginia tell us is that Democrats simply have to do a better job at recruiting good candidates. Deeds, in Virginia, by all accounts didn’t run a very good campaign, and Corzine was the wrong man at the wrong time, since Wall Street experience isn’t exactly what people are looking for these days in their politicians. But I’m confident that next year, Democrats will do a much better job of lining up good candidates that know their districts and have a good chance at winning.”

   Poll the stay-at-homes

If I was in charge of the Democratic National Committee, I would hastily be putting a poll out in the field in New Jersey and Virginia with some seriously open-ended questions. Due to micro-targeting, I would aim this poll at two groups: registered Democrats who previously voted (including new voters from 2008), but didn’t in this election; and independents who fit the same criteria. The single-most important question I would ask: “Why did you stay home this time around?” Followed up by the equally-important: “What could we do in the next year to get you back to the polls?”

“Democrats need to take one big lesson away from this week’s results in New Jersey and Virginia — the Republicans were more motivated. They had the momentum. And if we don’t regain that momentum on our side, then 2010 is going to be pretty grim for Democrats. So I would tell my party’s leaders to ask the citizens of Virginia and New Jersey who didn’t vote this time around ‘why did you stay home?’ I would examine their answers very closely, and I would put out a memo to each and every Democratic member of Congress stating exactly where we are falling short in our voters’ eyes. Because if we don’t turn this around, next year is going to be devastating for us come election day.”

   Put up, or shut up

No matter what the answers are to the poll just mentioned, the follow-through is just as important. Democrats need to produce. Now. If they have any hope of holding on to their congressional majorities next year, they need to get busy and convince the voters they know what they’re doing.

“I suspect if you did poll the stay-at-home voters, that they would tell you in various ways that they are disappointed with the Democratic Party. They expected some big changes, and all they’ve seen so far is smaller changes and a lot of arguing. On issue after issue, Democratic voters are becoming dispirited and disillusioned with the progress made so far. Now is not the time for the normal timidity of a midterm election year, now is the time to get some things done. Now is the time to produce. Now is the time to put up, or shut up. Because if we can’t manage to do so in the next year, last week’s election is going to look like a picnic to Democrats by comparison.”

   The Republicans splinter

However, those last few were pretty sobering, so let’s end here with a gratuitous slap to the face of the Republicans, and then finally with the one thing Democrats can brag about from last week. This first one should send some chills down a few Republican spines, I would warrant.

“For all the talk of how the Democrats did last week, the media seems to be largely ignoring the absolute cage match happening over in Republicanland. Two party factions — one who wants to get back to a ‘big tent’ concept, and one who wants only the purest of the pure — are heading for some epic collisions next year. And the thing the Republicans should really worry about — the thing that would keep me awake nights if I were a Republican — is the specter of a third-party challenge from the right in next year’s general elections. I see a real possibility of the Republican Party splintering off into two mutually-antagonistic sides over the question of ‘party purity’ next year. Which, I have to admit, fills me with delight as a Democrat.”

   Flip my Whig

OK, this one is just rubbing their faces in it, but since it was the only happy result from Tuesday, it should be kept handy if needed.

“For all this talk of a Republican Renaissance, did anybody notice that Democrats took a House seat last week in upstate New York? In some parts of this district, they have been represented by a Republican since before Abraham Lincoln was elected president. In particular, the last non-Republican to represent Franklin County was from the Whig Party. That seems like it’s worth a mention, if we’re talking about drawing sweeping conclusions from last week. Republicans lost a district they’ve held for over 150 years — that doesn’t happen every day in American politics, does it?”

[Program Note: Back in FTP [75] I was interviewed by “TJ and The Tux” for their podcast program on EastVillageRadio.com, to talk about Obama’s first 100 days. Since then, they’ve renamed their program “Shock and Awesome,” and they graciously had me back on again today to talk about Obama’s “first year” and the recent elections. So if you’d like to hear me sipping caffeine and attempting to talk about politics (and my cat) at 8:30 in the morning, check it out. Click on the “Listen” button for Nov. 06, 2009 — it’s at about an hour-and-a-half in to the show.]

Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com

Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

I will explain that silly subtitle in a moment, but first we’ve got to delve even deeper into rampant silliness. If such silliness and unseriousness does not appeal to you, then I strongly suggest you skip down and begin reading with this week’s Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award. Consider yourselves warned.

This column today celebrates a milestone — triple digits on the odometer! That’s right, as hard as it may seem to believe, this is the one hundredth volume of your weekly Friday Talking Points column. For a little over two years now, we’ve brought you our thoughts on “the week that was in politics,” and for a little less time than that, we’ve announced our weekly winners of both the aforementioned MIDOTW as well as the ignominious Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week. And we wrap it all up with some practical, good old-fashioned, home-brewed Democratic spin, our Talking Points for the week ahead.

Initially, this concept met with some scorn. To some, “spin” and “talking points” are ugly words, which proper ladies and gentlemen don’t use. My feeling, however, is that Democrats are so woefully bad at getting their own message out — especially in the short, easy-to-digest soundbites to which the mainstream media is addicted — that I certainly couldn’t do any harm by making such suggestions, and indeed might do some good. It’s been enough to keep me going for 100 columns, and I see no sign of Democrats mastering the art of “framing” their subjects, so another 100 columns being necessary isn’t entirely outside the realm of possibility.

But enough back-patting and self-congratulating. Oh, wait, one more — if you’d like to hear what I sound like trying to talk politics at 8:30 in the morning, there’s a program note at the end of this with a link to a podcast interview I did today. If that sort of thing interests you, then check it out.

But I promised you some silliness, so silliness I will now provide. Whenever “100 episodes” comes to my mind, I can’t help but think of South Park. The war in Iraq began about three weeks before the 100th episode of South Park aired, and at the time there was virtually nothing but jingoistic pro-war opinions being voiced on television. South Park, known mostly for lowbrow (and, some say, conservative) political views, put their finger on the pulse of both the anti-war and pro-war positions at the time, and came up with a summation that seemed downright brilliant at the time, and still does.

I won’t go into too much detail of the plotline of this episode (you can read a transcript of it, if you’d like). Suffice it to say it had half the town protesting against the war, and half the town protesting in favor of the war. The kids were assigned a report on how the Founding Fathers themselves would view the Iraq war, which Eric Cartman tried to weasel out of by attempting to send himself into a “flashback” to the past. He finally succeeds, and is on hand for the Founding Fathers debating the Declaration of Independence in the Continental Congress, and the question of whether to go to war with England or not. Here’s the South Park take on how this debate went:

HANCOCK:  Mr. Franklin, where do you stand on the war issue?

FRANKLIN:  I believe that if we are to form a new country, we cannot be a country that appears war-hungry and violent to the rest of the world. However, we also cannot be a country that appears weak and unwilling to fight to the rest of the world. So, what if we form a country that appears to want both?

JEFFERSON:  Yes. Yes of course. We go to war, and protest going to war at the same time.

DICKINSON:  Right. If the people of our new country are allowed to do whatever they wish, then some will support the war and some will protest it.

FRANKLIN:  And that means that as a nation, we could go to war with whomever we wished, but at the same time, act like we didn’t want to. If we allow the people to protest what the government does, then the country will be forever blameless.

ADAMS:  [Holding a slice of chocolate cake] It’s like having your cake, and eating it, too.

CONGRESSMAN 2:  Think of it: an entire nation founded on saying one thing and doing another.

HANCOCK:  And we will call that country the United States of America.

Cartman returns from his flashback to find the town killing each other in a riot which happened because the mayor told the anti-war protesters and the pro-war protesters that they’d have to share the town park on the same day. Cartman, uncharacteristically, is the voice of reason which ends the town’s fighting, as he gives his report from the stage:

I learned something today. This country was founded by some of the smartest thinkers the world has ever seen. And they knew one thing: that a truly great country can go to war, and at the same time, act like it doesn’t want to. You people who are for the war, you need the protesters. Because they make the country look like it’s made of sane, caring individuals. And you people who are anti-war, you need these flag-wavers, because, if our whole country was made up of nothing but soft [expletive deleted] protesters, we’d get taken down in a second. That’s why the Founding Fathers decided we should have both. It’s called “having your cake and eating it too.”

But the true silliness is at the very end, when the two groups embrace each other and start singing Donny And Marie’s “Little Bit of Country/Little Bit of Rock and Roll,” and then get completely surreal. Which is a good way for us to open our column today.

EVERYBODY:  We’re a little bit country, and we’re a little bit rock-n-roll!

STUART:  We can be a nation that believe in war…

MR. MACKEY:  And still tells the world that we don’t.

EVERYBODY:  Let the flag for hypocrisy fly high from every pole! We’re a little bit country, and we’re a little bit rock-n-roll!

RANDY:  Well, goodnight everybody. It sure has been great bringing you a hundred episodes.

SKEETER:  We want to thank our guests, the pro-war people. [Applause] And the anti-war people. [Applause]

STAN:  [Mystified] What the Hell are they doing now?

KYLE:  [Covers his nose and shuts his eyes tight] Ah, I don’t know.

EVERYBODY:  For the war, against, the war, WHO CARES?? One hundred episodes!

KYLE:  I hate this town. Ah, I really, really do.

Now that we’ve got the silly and surreal out of our system, let’s just move on, shall we?

While Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi certainly made a bid for winning the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week by scheduling a debate on the healthcare reform bill in the House, she has not yet delivered. She did try an interesting tactic to try to speed things up, though. After getting her bill “scored” by the Congressional Budget Office, she posted it online for 72 hours, making good on an earlier promise to do so (which, it should be noted, the Republicans never bothered to do when they were in charge). But that meant the debate and vote was pushed out to Saturday. Congress in session on a weekend! You could have knocked me over with a feather when I heard that.

But Pelosi accomplished this by being crafty. Next week, the House was planning to take half the week off for Veterans’ Day — so Pelosi told everyone that they could have the full week off if they voted on the healthcare reform bill first. This is why our legislators will be in the chambers this weekend — to get extra vacation time next week! Which is fine, since (for once) they’ll actually deserve a few days off. But this maneuver flew under most people’s radar, which is also why it was a brilliant political tactic for Pelosi to employ. Now, rumors are flying today (including one which says the vote’s not going to happen until next week), so we’ll see what happens next week.

For this week, however, we’ve got to at least give Speaker Pelosi an Honorable Mention for moving things forward on healthcare reform.

But this week’s uncontested Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week is newly-minted Representative Bill Owens, of the twenty-third House district in the great state of New York. Owens captured NY-23 this Tuesday, winning a very strange race which was really an intra-Republican donnybrook. A moderate Republican was on the ticket, but so was an ultra-conservative backed by Sarah Palin and the rest of the usual suspects from the “Small Tent” faction of the Republican Party. The Republican dropped out of the race, and actually endorsed the Democrat, strangely enough. Who actually won — even stranger.

Now, the mainstream media mostly ignored this race, because it didn’t easily fit in their storyline of “Republican Revival!” But this district going Democratic is simply stunning. It also presages some interesting struggles for the direction of the Republican Party in next year’s primaries, which I wrote about yesterday.

But the truly jaw-dropping part of the story is that over a third of the district (with reapportionment, the district has changed boundaries over the years) has been represented by a Republican in the House of Representatives since before the Civil War. Part of the district has had a Republican representative since 1856 — when the Republican Party began. And in Franklin Country, the last non-Republican representing them in the House was named George Simmons… who was a member of the Whig Party.

The Swing State Project website has more details, if you’re interested. There are no districts which have remained Democratic (even partially) since the Civil War — there used to be a few in Texas, but Tom DeLay took care of that. There is still one district in Pennsylvania with as long a pedigree for the Republicans, but the news of NY-23 switching parties is truly groundshaking, one would think.

Unless one got their news from the mainstream media, of course. Sigh.

Anyway, we simply can’t think of a more impressive Democrat this week, or indeed a more impressive Democratic feat in quite a while. So this week’s MIDOTW voting wasn’t even close. Our hands-down Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week is none other than Bill Owens. Well done!

[Unfortunately, Representative-Elect Bill Owens does not have an official House webpage yet, so you'll have to wait a week or so to congratulate him.]

But enough of Republicans “Whigging out,” as it were (see, I told you I’d work that in…). Sadly, we must turn to our own disappointments this week. While the Democratic candidates for governor in New Jersey and Virginia were disappointing, this week we unfortunately have to return to an old standard for our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid really has got to go. I have said it before and I doubtlessly will say it again, but it is time for Senate Democrats to wake up and realize that the only thing Harry is “leading” them to is a possible disaster at the polls next year.

While activity and hopefulness was emanating from the House, with Pelosi moving healthcare reform one more step forward, Harry Reid may have killed the entire effort for the year over in the Senate. No, that’s not an exaggeration. Harry seems to think he’s got all the time in the world to get this done. In the summer, he attempted to talk tough about deadlines for Max Baucus, and deadlines for introducing the bill under budget reconciliation rules which only need 50 votes (instead of 60) — but such talk has apparently been long forgotten by Reid.

Reid’s office leaked this week that the Senate may not even bring a bill to the floor until December… or maybe not even this year. Perhaps next year, if they can find the time, who knows?

Reid clumsily attempted to walk this back later, by saying he shares Obama’s goal of getting it done this year, but it was pretty weak medicine indeed after his earlier statements.

Somebody please tie Harry to a chair so I can throw this bucket of cold water in his face: “Harry — if it doesn’t get done this year, it is not going to get done in an election year. And Harry, you don’t get the whole calendar to play around with. You have to schedule in some time for a conference committee between the houses after the Senate votes, or there will not be time to finish the bill.“

December, I would like to strongly remind Democrats, is the traditional month when the caucus votes on their leadership. This is the month when they replace people in positions like… oh, I don’t know… Senate Majority Leader, for instance. And any Senate Democrats frustrated by the pace of their leadership (which includes, by the way, committee chairs — I’m just saying…) need to start a whispering campaign in the cloakrooms of the Capitol that if healthcare reform fails by this December, then they will be voting some new leaders in for next year. Because, at this point, we simply don’t have time for the Nevada voters to chuck Reid out next year.

Maybe that’ll wake Harry up. It’s certainly worth a try.

For the record-shattering thirteenth time, we sadly must award Harry Reid the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week.

[Contact Harry Reid on his Senate contact page to let him know what you think of his actions.]

Volume 100 (11/6/09)

One hundred epsiodes! Woo hoo!

Sorry, I apologize, I dealt with that silliness earlier and it won’t happen again, I promise. Ahem.

We now turn to our Friday Talking Points for this week. I had notions of digging through the last 99 columns and presenting some sort of “best of” section here today, but sadly, it has been too busy a week politically, so we must forego such pleasures and offer up some commonsensical ways for Democrats to speak of what’s been going on of late. As always, the full archive of all 100 of these columns is available at fridaytalkingpoints.com (which I registered for those people who find it easier to spell than chrisweigant.com).

For those of you who are newcomers to this column and were drawn in by the number 100 beckoning you from the headline, welcome! The core of this column is presented weekly (some would say “weakly,” but we cheerfully ignore them, as always) in the hopes of providing some snappy one-liners to Democrats for the upcoming week.

Originally, this was solely for the purposes of Democratic officeholders who are scheduled to appear on Sunday chat shows, but I have found over the months that they work just as well talking to your strange cousin or uncle, or to the conservative you have to share an office with.

In other words, anyone can use them! Feel free! Try it today!

   Dachau? Really?

This one is just odious, I have to admit. Because this sort of thing shows up at political demonstrations more and more, but this wasn’t a rally or a demonstration, officially it was a “press conference” hosted by Representative Michele Bachmann, complete with lots and lots of Republicans standing on the stage and speaking from the podium. A photo of what I’m talking about is available at ThinkProgress, I should add. This should be used by any Democrat debating healthcare reform this weekend with any Republican, since even if they weren’t there, it is just as useful.

“Before we begin, I would like to denounce — and invite my colleague to equally denounce — whoever it was at the Republican ‘press conference’ earlier this week who saw fit to wave giant signs equating our efforts to provide affordable healthcare coverage to all Americans with a photograph of a pile of naked, dead bodies taken at the Dachau concentration camp. I think this sort of thing is despicable, I think it is a slap in the face to all Jewish people in America, and I think it deserves the strongest sort of condemnation, no matter what party you are from. I noticed that while this enormous sign was fully visible from the stage, not one of the speakers addressed it in any way whatsoever. I think that is shameful, and I invite my colleague to join me in denouncing such tactics.” (Turn to Republican you’re being interviewed with, at this point, and watch them squirm….)

   Good thing there was government healthcare available….

This one is a tightrope to walk, so as not to fall into a pit of glee over someone’s misfortune — but that should not stop anyone from pointing out the thick, thick irony of it all.

“You know, Dana Milbank of the Washington Post had a very interesting article the other day, where he pointed out the fact that during the Republican anti-government-healthcare rally someone suffered a heart attack and, quote, Medical personnel from the Capitol physician’s office — an entity that could, quite accurately, be labeled government-run health care — rushed over, attaching electrodes to his chest and giving him oxygen and an IV drip, unquote. Now, if this crowd was so morally against the concept of government healthcare, then by all rights they should have waited for a private-sector ambulance to arrive, and let the victim die in the meantime. But I noticed — just as I notice many in these crowds who seem to be Medicare-eligible — that they’re just fine with government healthcare for themselves, it is merely others they do not wish to extend the privilege to. I find this ironic, personally.”

   We need some stronger candidates

This week’s election results are going to be a major subject this weekend. So Democrats have got to be ready to talk about the lessons learned.

“I think that what New Jersey and Virginia tell us is that Democrats simply have to do a better job at recruiting good candidates. Deeds, in Virginia, by all accounts didn’t run a very good campaign, and Corzine was the wrong man at the wrong time, since Wall Street experience isn’t exactly what people are looking for these days in their politicians. But I’m confident that next year, Democrats will do a much better job of lining up good candidates that know their districts and have a good chance at winning.”

   Poll the stay-at-homes

If I was in charge of the Democratic National Committee, I would hastily be putting a poll out in the field in New Jersey and Virginia with some seriously open-ended questions. Due to micro-targeting, I would aim this poll at two groups: registered Democrats who previously voted (including new voters from 2008), but didn’t in this election; and independents who fit the same criteria. The single-most important question I would ask: “Why did you stay home this time around?” Followed up by the equally-important: “What could we do in the next year to get you back to the polls?”

“Democrats need to take one big lesson away from this week’s results in New Jersey and Virginia — the Republicans were more motivated. They had the momentum. And if we don’t regain that momentum on our side, then 2010 is going to be pretty grim for Democrats. So I would tell my party’s leaders to ask the citizens of Virginia and New Jersey who didn’t vote this time around ‘why did you stay home?’ I would examine their answers very closely, and I would put out a memo to each and every Democratic member of Congress stating exactly where we are falling short in our voters’ eyes. Because if we don’t turn this around, next year is going to be devastating for us come election day.”

   Put up, or shut up

No matter what the answers are to the poll just mentioned, the follow-through is just as important. Democrats need to produce. Now. If they have any hope of holding on to their congressional majorities next year, they need to get busy and convince the voters they know what they’re doing.

“I suspect if you did poll the stay-at-home voters, that they would tell you in various ways that they are disappointed with the Democratic Party. They expected some big changes, and all they’ve seen so far is smaller changes and a lot of arguing. On issue after issue, Democratic voters are becoming dispirited and disillusioned with the progress made so far. Now is not the time for the normal timidity of a midterm election year, now is the time to get some things done. Now is the time to produce. Now is the time to put up, or shut up. Because if we can’t manage to do so in the next year, last week’s election is going to look like a picnic to Democrats by comparison.”

   The Republicans splinter

However, those last few were pretty sobering, so let’s end here with a gratuitous slap to the face of the Republicans, and then finally with the one thing Democrats can brag about from last week. This first one should send some chills down a few Republican spines, I would warrant.

“For all the talk of how the Democrats did last week, the media seems to be largely ignoring the absolute cage match happening over in Republicanland. Two party factions — one who wants to get back to a ‘big tent’ concept, and one who wants only the purest of the pure — are heading for some epic collisions next year. And the thing the Republicans should really worry about — the thing that would keep me awake nights if I were a Republican — is the specter of a third-party challenge from the right in next year’s general elections. I see a real possibility of the Republican Party splintering off into two mutually-antagonistic sides over the question of ‘party purity’ next year. Which, I have to admit, fills me with delight as a Democrat.”

   Flip my Whig

OK, this one is just rubbing their faces in it, but since it was the only happy result from Tuesday, it should be kept handy if needed.

“For all this talk of a Republican Renaissance, did anybody notice that Democrats took a House seat last week in upstate New York? In some parts of this district, they have been represented by a Republican since before Abraham Lincoln was elected president. In particular, the last non-Republican to represent Franklin County was from the Whig Party. That seems like it’s worth a mention, if we’re talking about drawing sweeping conclusions from last week. Republicans lost a district they’ve held for over 150 years — that doesn’t happen every day in American politics, does it?”

[Program Note: Back in FTP [75] I was interviewed by “TJ and The Tux” for their podcast program on EastVillageRadio.com, to talk about Obama’s first 100 days. Since then, they’ve renamed their program “Shock and Awesome,” and they graciously had me back on again today to talk about Obama’s “first year” and the recent elections. So if you’d like to hear me sipping caffeine and attempting to talk about politics (and my cat) at 8:30 in the morning, check it out. Click on the “Listen” button for Nov. 06, 2009 — it’s at about an hour-and-a-half in to the show.]

Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com

Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

I will explain that silly subtitle in a moment, but first we’ve got to delve even deeper into rampant silliness. If such silliness and unseriousness does not appeal to you, then I strongly suggest you skip down and begin reading with this week’s Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award. Consider yourselves warned.

This column today celebrates a milestone — triple digits on the odometer! That’s right, as hard as it may seem to believe, this is the one hundredth volume of your weekly Friday Talking Points column. For a little over two years now, we’ve brought you our thoughts on “the week that was in politics,” and for a little less time than that, we’ve announced our weekly winners of both the aforementioned MIDOTW as well as the ignominious Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week. And we wrap it all up with some practical, good old-fashioned, home-brewed Democratic spin, our Talking Points for the week ahead.

Initially, this concept met with some scorn. To some, “spin” and “talking points” are ugly words, which proper ladies and gentlemen don’t use. My feeling, however, is that Democrats are so woefully bad at getting their own message out — especially in the short, easy-to-digest soundbites to which the mainstream media is addicted — that I certainly couldn’t do any harm by making such suggestions, and indeed might do some good. It’s been enough to keep me going for 100 columns, and I see no sign of Democrats mastering the art of “framing” their subjects, so another 100 columns being necessary isn’t entirely outside the realm of possibility.

But enough back-patting and self-congratulating. Oh, wait, one more — if you’d like to hear what I sound like trying to talk politics at 8:30 in the morning, there’s a program note at the end of this with a link to a podcast interview I did today. If that sort of thing interests you, then check it out.

But I promised you some silliness, so silliness I will now provide. Whenever “100 episodes” comes to my mind, I can’t help but think of South Park. The war in Iraq began about three weeks before the 100th episode of South Park aired, and at the time there was virtually nothing but jingoistic pro-war opinions being voiced on television. South Park, known mostly for lowbrow (and, some say, conservative) political views, put their finger on the pulse of both the anti-war and pro-war positions at the time, and came up with a summation that seemed downright brilliant at the time, and still does.

I won’t go into too much detail of the plotline of this episode (you can read a transcript of it, if you’d like). Suffice it to say it had half the town protesting against the war, and half the town protesting in favor of the war. The kids were assigned a report on how the Founding Fathers themselves would view the Iraq war, which Eric Cartman tried to weasel out of by attempting to send himself into a “flashback” to the past. He finally succeeds, and is on hand for the Founding Fathers debating the Declaration of Independence in the Continental Congress, and the question of whether to go to war with England or not. Here’s the South Park take on how this debate went:

HANCOCK:  Mr. Franklin, where do you stand on the war issue?

FRANKLIN:  I believe that if we are to form a new country, we cannot be a country that appears war-hungry and violent to the rest of the world. However, we also cannot be a country that appears weak and unwilling to fight to the rest of the world. So, what if we form a country that appears to want both?

JEFFERSON:  Yes. Yes of course. We go to war, and protest going to war at the same time.

DICKINSON:  Right. If the people of our new country are allowed to do whatever they wish, then some will support the war and some will protest it.

FRANKLIN:  And that means that as a nation, we could go to war with whomever we wished, but at the same time, act like we didn’t want to. If we allow the people to protest what the government does, then the country will be forever blameless.

ADAMS:  [Holding a slice of chocolate cake] It’s like having your cake, and eating it, too.

CONGRESSMAN 2:  Think of it: an entire nation founded on saying one thing and doing another.

HANCOCK:  And we will call that country the United States of America.

Cartman returns from his flashback to find the town killing each other in a riot which happened because the mayor told the anti-war protesters and the pro-war protesters that they’d have to share the town park on the same day. Cartman, uncharacteristically, is the voice of reason which ends the town’s fighting, as he gives his report from the stage:

I learned something today. This country was founded by some of the smartest thinkers the world has ever seen. And they knew one thing: that a truly great country can go to war, and at the same time, act like it doesn’t want to. You people who are for the war, you need the protesters. Because they make the country look like it’s made of sane, caring individuals. And you people who are anti-war, you need these flag-wavers, because, if our whole country was made up of nothing but soft [expletive deleted] protesters, we’d get taken down in a second. That’s why the Founding Fathers decided we should have both. It’s called “having your cake and eating it too.”

But the true silliness is at the very end, when the two groups embrace each other and start singing Donny And Marie’s “Little Bit of Country/Little Bit of Rock and Roll,” and then get completely surreal. Which is a good way for us to open our column today.

EVERYBODY:  We’re a little bit country, and we’re a little bit rock-n-roll!

STUART:  We can be a nation that believe in war…

MR. MACKEY:  And still tells the world that we don’t.

EVERYBODY:  Let the flag for hypocrisy fly high from every pole! We’re a little bit country, and we’re a little bit rock-n-roll!

RANDY:  Well, goodnight everybody. It sure has been great bringing you a hundred episodes.

SKEETER:  We want to thank our guests, the pro-war people. [Applause] And the anti-war people. [Applause]

STAN:  [Mystified] What the Hell are they doing now?

KYLE:  [Covers his nose and shuts his eyes tight] Ah, I don’t know.

EVERYBODY:  For the war, against, the war, WHO CARES?? One hundred episodes!

KYLE:  I hate this town. Ah, I really, really do.

Now that we’ve got the silly and surreal out of our system, let’s just move on, shall we?

While Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi certainly made a bid for winning the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week by scheduling a debate on the healthcare reform bill in the House, she has not yet delivered. She did try an interesting tactic to try to speed things up, though. After getting her bill “scored” by the Congressional Budget Office, she posted it online for 72 hours, making good on an earlier promise to do so (which, it should be noted, the Republicans never bothered to do when they were in charge). But that meant the debate and vote was pushed out to Saturday. Congress in session on a weekend! You could have knocked me over with a feather when I heard that.

But Pelosi accomplished this by being crafty. Next week, the House was planning to take half the week off for Veterans’ Day — so Pelosi told everyone that they could have the full week off if they voted on the healthcare reform bill first. This is why our legislators will be in the chambers this weekend — to get extra vacation time next week! Which is fine, since (for once) they’ll actually deserve a few days off. But this maneuver flew under most people’s radar, which is also why it was a brilliant political tactic for Pelosi to employ. Now, rumors are flying today (including one which says the vote’s not going to happen until next week), so we’ll see what happens next week.

For this week, however, we’ve got to at least give Speaker Pelosi an Honorable Mention for moving things forward on healthcare reform.

But this week’s uncontested Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week is newly-minted Representative Bill Owens, of the twenty-third House district in the great state of New York. Owens captured NY-23 this Tuesday, winning a very strange race which was really an intra-Republican donnybrook. A moderate Republican was on the ticket, but so was an ultra-conservative backed by Sarah Palin and the rest of the usual suspects from the “Small Tent” faction of the Republican Party. The Republican dropped out of the race, and actually endorsed the Democrat, strangely enough. Who actually won — even stranger.

Now, the mainstream media mostly ignored this race, because it didn’t easily fit in their storyline of “Republican Revival!” But this district going Democratic is simply stunning. It also presages some interesting struggles for the direction of the Republican Party in next year’s primaries, which I wrote about yesterday.

But the truly jaw-dropping part of the story is that over a third of the district (with reapportionment, the district has changed boundaries over the years) has been represented by a Republican in the House of Representatives since before the Civil War. Part of the district has had a Republican representative since 1856 — when the Republican Party began. And in Franklin Country, the last non-Republican representing them in the House was named George Simmons… who was a member of the Whig Party.

The Swing State Project website has more details, if you’re interested. There are no districts which have remained Democratic (even partially) since the Civil War — there used to be a few in Texas, but Tom DeLay took care of that. There is still one district in Pennsylvania with as long a pedigree for the Republicans, but the news of NY-23 switching parties is truly groundshaking, one would think.

Unless one got their news from the mainstream media, of course. Sigh.

Anyway, we simply can’t think of a more impressive Democrat this week, or indeed a more impressive Democratic feat in quite a while. So this week’s MIDOTW voting wasn’t even close. Our hands-down Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week is none other than Bill Owens. Well done!

[Unfortunately, Representative-Elect Bill Owens does not have an official House webpage yet, so you'll have to wait a week or so to congratulate him.]

But enough of Republicans “Whigging out,” as it were (see, I told you I’d work that in…). Sadly, we must turn to our own disappointments this week. While the Democratic candidates for governor in New Jersey and Virginia were disappointing, this week we unfortunately have to return to an old standard for our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid really has got to go. I have said it before and I doubtlessly will say it again, but it is time for Senate Democrats to wake up and realize that the only thing Harry is “leading” them to is a possible disaster at the polls next year.

While activity and hopefulness was emanating from the House, with Pelosi moving healthcare reform one more step forward, Harry Reid may have killed the entire effort for the year over in the Senate. No, that’s not an exaggeration. Harry seems to think he’s got all the time in the world to get this done. In the summer, he attempted to talk tough about deadlines for Max Baucus, and deadlines for introducing the bill under budget reconciliation rules which only need 50 votes (instead of 60) — but such talk has apparently been long forgotten by Reid.

Reid’s office leaked this week that the Senate may not even bring a bill to the floor until December… or maybe not even this year. Perhaps next year, if they can find the time, who knows?

Reid clumsily attempted to walk this back later, by saying he shares Obama’s goal of getting it done this year, but it was pretty weak medicine indeed after his earlier statements.

Somebody please tie Harry to a chair so I can throw this bucket of cold water in his face: “Harry — if it doesn’t get done this year, it is not going to get done in an election year. And Harry, you don’t get the whole calendar to play around with. You have to schedule in some time for a conference committee between the houses after the Senate votes, or there will not be time to finish the bill.“

December, I would like to strongly remind Democrats, is the traditional month when the caucus votes on their leadership. This is the month when they replace people in positions like… oh, I don’t know… Senate Majority Leader, for instance. And any Senate Democrats frustrated by the pace of their leadership (which includes, by the way, committee chairs — I’m just saying…) need to start a whispering campaign in the cloakrooms of the Capitol that if healthcare reform fails by this December, then they will be voting some new leaders in for next year. Because, at this point, we simply don’t have time for the Nevada voters to chuck Reid out next year.

Maybe that’ll wake Harry up. It’s certainly worth a try.

For the record-shattering thirteenth time, we sadly must award Harry Reid the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week.

[Contact Harry Reid on his Senate contact page to let him know what you think of his actions.]

Volume 100 (11/6/09)

One hundred epsiodes! Woo hoo!

Sorry, I apologize, I dealt with that silliness earlier and it won’t happen again, I promise. Ahem.

We now turn to our Friday Talking Points for this week. I had notions of digging through the last 99 columns and presenting some sort of “best of” section here today, but sadly, it has been too busy a week politically, so we must forego such pleasures and offer up some commonsensical ways for Democrats to speak of what’s been going on of late. As always, the full archive of all 100 of these columns is available at fridaytalkingpoints.com (which I registered for those people who find it easier to spell than chrisweigant.com).

For those of you who are newcomers to this column and were drawn in by the number 100 beckoning you from the headline, welcome! The core of this column is presented weekly (some would say “weakly,” but we cheerfully ignore them, as always) in the hopes of providing some snappy one-liners to Democrats for the upcoming week.

Originally, this was solely for the purposes of Democratic officeholders who are scheduled to appear on Sunday chat shows, but I have found over the months that they work just as well talking to your strange cousin or uncle, or to the conservative you have to share an office with.

In other words, anyone can use them! Feel free! Try it today!

   Dachau? Really?

This one is just odious, I have to admit. Because this sort of thing shows up at political demonstrations more and more, but this wasn’t a rally or a demonstration, officially it was a “press conference” hosted by Representative Michele Bachmann, complete with lots and lots of Republicans standing on the stage and speaking from the podium. A photo of what I’m talking about is available at ThinkProgress, I should add. This should be used by any Democrat debating healthcare reform this weekend with any Republican, since even if they weren’t there, it is just as useful.

“Before we begin, I would like to denounce — and invite my colleague to equally denounce — whoever it was at the Republican ‘press conference’ earlier this week who saw fit to wave giant signs equating our efforts to provide affordable healthcare coverage to all Americans with a photograph of a pile of naked, dead bodies taken at the Dachau concentration camp. I think this sort of thing is despicable, I think it is a slap in the face to all Jewish people in America, and I think it deserves the strongest sort of condemnation, no matter what party you are from. I noticed that while this enormous sign was fully visible from the stage, not one of the speakers addressed it in any way whatsoever. I think that is shameful, and I invite my colleague to join me in denouncing such tactics.” (Turn to Republican you’re being interviewed with, at this point, and watch them squirm….)

   Good thing there was government healthcare available….

This one is a tightrope to walk, so as not to fall into a pit of glee over someone’s misfortune — but that should not stop anyone from pointing out the thick, thick irony of it all.

“You know, Dana Milbank of the Washington Post had a very interesting article the other day, where he pointed out the fact that during the Republican anti-government-healthcare rally someone suffered a heart attack and, quote, Medical personnel from the Capitol physician’s office — an entity that could, quite accurately, be labeled government-run health care — rushed over, attaching electrodes to his chest and giving him oxygen and an IV drip, unquote. Now, if this crowd was so morally against the concept of government healthcare, then by all rights they should have waited for a private-sector ambulance to arrive, and let the victim die in the meantime. But I noticed — just as I notice many in these crowds who seem to be Medicare-eligible — that they’re just fine with government healthcare for themselves, it is merely others they do not wish to extend the privilege to. I find this ironic, personally.”

   We need some stronger candidates

This week’s election results are going to be a major subject this weekend. So Democrats have got to be ready to talk about the lessons learned.

“I think that what New Jersey and Virginia tell us is that Democrats simply have to do a better job at recruiting good candidates. Deeds, in Virginia, by all accounts didn’t run a very good campaign, and Corzine was the wrong man at the wrong time, since Wall Street experience isn’t exactly what people are looking for these days in their politicians. But I’m confident that next year, Democrats will do a much better job of lining up good candidates that know their districts and have a good chance at winning.”

   Poll the stay-at-homes

If I was in charge of the Democratic National Committee, I would hastily be putting a poll out in the field in New Jersey and Virginia with some seriously open-ended questions. Due to micro-targeting, I would aim this poll at two groups: registered Democrats who previously voted (including new voters from 2008), but didn’t in this election; and independents who fit the same criteria. The single-most important question I would ask: “Why did you stay home this time around?” Followed up by the equally-important: “What could we do in the next year to get you back to the polls?”

“Democrats need to take one big lesson away from this week’s results in New Jersey and Virginia — the Republicans were more motivated. They had the momentum. And if we don’t regain that momentum on our side, then 2010 is going to be pretty grim for Democrats. So I would tell my party’s leaders to ask the citizens of Virginia and New Jersey who didn’t vote this time around ‘why did you stay home?’ I would examine their answers very closely, and I would put out a memo to each and every Democratic member of Congress stating exactly where we are falling short in our voters’ eyes. Because if we don’t turn this around, next year is going to be devastating for us come election day.”

   Put up, or shut up

No matter what the answers are to the poll just mentioned, the follow-through is just as important. Democrats need to produce. Now. If they have any hope of holding on to their congressional majorities next year, they need to get busy and convince the voters they know what they’re doing.

“I suspect if you did poll the stay-at-home voters, that they would tell you in various ways that they are disappointed with the Democratic Party. They expected some big changes, and all they’ve seen so far is smaller changes and a lot of arguing. On issue after issue, Democratic voters are becoming dispirited and disillusioned with the progress made so far. Now is not the time for the normal timidity of a midterm election year, now is the time to get some things done. Now is the time to produce. Now is the time to put up, or shut up. Because if we can’t manage to do so in the next year, last week’s election is going to look like a picnic to Democrats by comparison.”

   The Republicans splinter

However, those last few were pretty sobering, so let’s end here with a gratuitous slap to the face of the Republicans, and then finally with the one thing Democrats can brag about from last week. This first one should send some chills down a few Republican spines, I would warrant.

“For all the talk of how the Democrats did last week, the media seems to be largely ignoring the absolute cage match happening over in Republicanland. Two party factions — one who wants to get back to a ‘big tent’ concept, and one who wants only the purest of the pure — are heading for some epic collisions next year. And the thing the Republicans should really worry about — the thing that would keep me awake nights if I were a Republican — is the specter of a third-party challenge from the right in next year’s general elections. I see a real possibility of the Republican Party splintering off into two mutually-antagonistic sides over the question of ‘party purity’ next year. Which, I have to admit, fills me with delight as a Democrat.”

   Flip my Whig

OK, this one is just rubbing their faces in it, but since it was the only happy result from Tuesday, it should be kept handy if needed.

“For all this talk of a Republican Renaissance, did anybody notice that Democrats took a House seat last week in upstate New York? In some parts of this district, they have been represented by a Republican since before Abraham Lincoln was elected president. In particular, the last non-Republican to represent Franklin County was from the Whig Party. That seems like it’s worth a mention, if we’re talking about drawing sweeping conclusions from last week. Republicans lost a district they’ve held for over 150 years — that doesn’t happen every day in American politics, does it?”

[Program Note: Back in FTP [75] I was interviewed by “TJ and The Tux” for their podcast program on EastVillageRadio.com, to talk about Obama’s first 100 days. Since then, they’ve renamed their program “Shock and Awesome,” and they graciously had me back on again today to talk about Obama’s “first year” and the recent elections. So if you’d like to hear me sipping caffeine and attempting to talk about politics (and my cat) at 8:30 in the morning, check it out. Click on the “Listen” button for Nov. 06, 2009 — it’s at about an hour-and-a-half in to the show.]

Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com

Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

I live on Wall Street. I’m not saying this metaphorically. I moved to the corner of Broad & Wall (the old JP Morgan bank turned residential a few years ago. The safe, which held all the gold, is now a swimming pool) on March 9 of this year, right at the bottom of the market. Rents were dirt cheap as people were abandoning the area to go to greener pastures in Montana or Kansas. Everyone had left Wall Street for dead. Even the rats that scurried up and down the street at 2 in the morning were feeling the emptiness as the scraps of leftover chicken wings that were normally the feast of profitable traders were now gone much like the 9000 points of the Dow that went with it.

Since I’ve moved in (and I’ll take full credit) the market has gone straight up, closely followed by a largely improving economy. During the course of the past few months, several myths came to bear on the environment that will play out through 2010 to create enormous opportunities in the market and the economy.

- Myth #1: Savings is good -
One picture is worth a thousand words:

(source: US Federal Reserve)

From 1980 to 2000, the U.S. Savings rate went straight down. As we know, the economy and stock market boomed during this time. Did people go bankrupt from lack of savings? No, of course not: They became more productive, they started more businesses, they made more money and they enjoyed the fruit of those riches by spending more. A cycle which fed on itself, leading to more income across the economy. Look at when saving last spiked, in the mid-70s, during the worst recession, until now.

Right now, the savings rate is the highest its been in a decade. The economy won’t truly improve until that rate ticks down again and Americans get back to their spendthrift ways.

- Myth #2: Inflation is bad

Uncontrolled Zimbabwe-style inflation is bad. Producers that make product today need to know what they are going to charge for it tomorrow. Else production stops. But if inflation was steady and highly predictable, as it has been in our economy for largely forever (except for in the mid 70s) then here are some of the benefits of inflation (as opposed to no inflation or deflation).
A) Our goods become more attractive to foreign economies, making our exports go up.
B) Consumers wish to buy at cheaper prices today than more expensive prices tomorrow, so our spending goes up.
C) The dollar gets a little weaker so a small amount of inflation acts as a way of subtly defaulting on our debt without actually defaulting.
D) Tax revenues go up because of “A” and “B”, making it also easier to pay down our debt.
E) We feel more flush as the value of our assets (houses and stocks) and our income goes up with inflation, even if this is an artificial feeling of being flush.

- Myth #3: Debt is bad
For 4000 years, debt has fueled the growth of any capitalistic economy. Most people reading this have a high percentage of Debt / Assets since we were all able to buy our houses with debt. When interest rates are low and inflation is low (as it is now) it’s good to borrow and put the money in real assets.

Eventually inflation roars back and those assets have gained considerably in value. The thing that kills capitalism is persistent deflation, as happened in the Depression. Fortunately we have a Fed that learned from the mistakes in that period (See Bernanke’s book, “Essays on the Great Depression”).

- Myth #4: Mark to market accounting is good

The economy began to spiral down in November, 2007 with the advent of FAS 157, the accounting rule requiring banks to mark their debt to market rather than to a more subjective notion of fair value.

Admittedly, the banks had abused that subjectivity. But here is a simple example of why mark to market in illiquid asset classes could be bad: Let’s say your neighbor buys a house for $300,000 and his house is very similar to yours. Let’s say two years later he gets a divorce and now he has to sell his house in a fire sale and can only get $200,000. Did your house really just go down in value to $200,000? No, of course not. But that’s where all the banks would have to mark your house now according to FAS 157. And if enough houses get marked down like that then suddenly the banks assets are not high enough according to regulatory standards and the bank fails.

- Myth #5: Unemployment is bad

The other day I was at a restaurant and it took 20 minutes for the waiter to get me my water. That guy should be fired. Or my lawyer’s assistant forgot to give my lawyer a message from me. She should be fired. For years, because the economy was moving up, that waiter and that assistant were not fired. Companies couldn’t fire them because they were either afraid to (I’ve managed hundreds of people – it’s hard to fire people. You feel bad afterwards) or because they would be too short-handed if they did. Well, that period is over. The “Great Recession” has given employers the excuse they need to fire everyone (”sorry, it’s the recession”). Consequently, productivity has shot up considerably. This is a good thing that will have long-term positive effects on the economy. And as businesses replenish their inventories, companies will be forced to hire good people to help them create those inventories.

I’m excited. The next phase of this economic cycle is beginning and my gut tells me we’re going to be pleasantly surprised at the outcomes. What myths am I missing?