James Janos to Run for the US Senate

UPDATE WS @ 1128 AM: Janos says he won't "make a decision" until the filing deadline. This was probably a false alarm...

Yeah, would it kill me to call him "Jesse Ventura?" As a matter of fact, yes it would.

In an interview with NPR's David Welna that ran today former Gov. Jesse "The Body" Ventura, Ind-Minn., says he will run for Senate, challenging incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., whom Ventura defeated for governor in 1998, as well as Democratic nominee and former Saturday Night Live humorist Al Franken.

Ventura, born Jim Janos, tells Welna that the main reason he's running is because of Coleman's support for the war in Iraq. "That's the reason I run," he says. "I run because it angers me...All you Minnesotans take a good hard look at all three of us. And you decide: if you were in a dark alley which one of the three of us would you want with you?

Ventura had a stormy tenure as governor and horrible relations with the Minnesota press corps. Thus, it was the June issue of a local wine magazine where he chose to drop hints about his pending campaign.

"I'm not a politician, I'm a statesman," he told Wineheads. "I do one term, and then I go back to the private sector. If I get back into the fray again this year, it's only because I've been gone five years back to the private sector. That's what I did when I was mayor. That's a statesman. That's not a career politician."

I think that effectively ends any chance Al Franken had of ever being a US Senator. And no, Janos isn't going to win either. The Republicans just had a Senate seat handed back to them on a silver fucking platter.

Typically, voters don't think "yes, who would I want to be in a dark alley with me" because, well, that would mean that they would have to imagine themselves as being total fucking idiots to have gone into the dark alley with Janos, Coleman and Franken in the first place, and if a large number of voters are imagining themselves doing something stupid, well, you end up with...Governor Ventura.

I hope I'm wrong.

--WS

Senator Byrd Lashes Out, Goes to Hospital

Would someone please tell John McCain that Dick Cheney is rested and ready for a third term as Vice-President? Because we really need more of Cheney, not less of him:

Vice President Dick Cheney apologized Monday for what his spokeswoman called "an inappropriate attempt at humor" that implied that inbreeding is common among West Virginians, a remark that elicited outrage from the state's senior senator.

Asked during a question-and-answer session at the National Press Club about the fact that a search of his family tree found he is a distant relative of Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential front-runner, Cheney said the two politicians were unlikely to hold a family reunion.

He said that the Cheney line on his father's side of the family dates to 1630's, and a Cheney family line on his mother's side dates to the 1650's.

"So, I had Cheneys on both sides of the family — and we don't even live in West Virginia," Cheney cracked. After pausing for laughter from the crowd, Cheney added, "You can say those things when you're not running for re-election."

Afterward, West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd lashed out at Cheney for the "insult to all Americans." In a written statement, Byrd declared that Cheney showed "contempt and astounding ignorance toward his own countrymen" with the comments.

Byrd has now been admitted to the hospital with a high fever--coincidence? Probably not.

Byrd, 90, the longest-serving senator in U.S. history, was taken to a Virginia hospital in the early evening and will stay there overnight after feeling ill throughout the day, spokesman Jesse Jacobs said. Jacobs said Byrd had felt “lethargic and sluggish” throughout the day, but attended the lone Senate vote of the day, at 5:30 p.m. He was one of 14 senators to vote against debating a climate change bill.

Shortly thereafter, Byrd went home and reported the same symptoms to his caregiver. The caregiver discovered that Byrd had a fever and consulted the senator’s physician, who recommended a hospital visit, Jacobs said.

Byrd, who was elected in 1949 and now assumes the powerful Appropriations Committee chairmanship, was hospitalized briefly in February after a fall at his home and again in March for adverse reactions to medication.

--WS

Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA)

[Image: Aerial photograph of the Castleshaw Roman fort which lies on the old Roman Road from Manchester to York.]

I had to get in my Pale Rider Way Way back Time Machine to go get this for you, so please read it:

ONE of the most effective ways of breeding enmity among friendly nations is to station the troops of one country on the soil of another in peacetime. The problem is compounded when the foreign troops claim extraterritorial privileges and hold themselves not subject to local law. In the overall grand strategy of the cold war, the U.S. has sought to devise a new and workable solution to the old problems: a worldwide network of "status-of-forces agreements" designed to cover the bulk of 700,000 U.S. soldiers, sailors and airmen stationed in 49 friendly countries.

The status-of-forces agreements, in spite of the ruckus over Specialist Third Class Girard in Japan, are working out amazingly well. Status-of-forces agreements have contributed in six years of steady growth toward easing the tensions between allies, and have added up to a remarkable good-sense show of international justice from which the U.S. and its allies alike have benefited. One Girard case provides an uproar in the U.S. and Japan, for example, but 5,544 other U.S.-Japanese cases that came up last year worked out smoothly. Over a longer term, fewer than half a dozen out of 10,000 arrests of Americans in France since 1953 have caused the U.S. any concern.

Off Duty, Off Base. Since 1951, the U.S. has negotiated more than 40 status-of-forces agreements covering most of the world sectors where the U.S. force-in-being is deployed. The basic agreement is the NATO status-of-forces treaty signed in London in 1951 and ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1953. This NATO treaty grants the U.S. primary jurisdiction over G.I.s in a NATO country who get in trouble while on duty, or who commit offenses against other U.S. citizens. The treaty generally grants the "host" NATO country primary legal jurisdiction when G.I.s commit off-duty, off-base offenses that can range from running red lights to rape.

Now, how many blogs will link to an article from 1957 as if it were yesterday and locate for you a very, very relevant little nugget of information?

The key provision--ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1953--means that when the United States decides to station troops on foreign soil, a SOFA must be ratified by the United States Senate.

Is the SOFA being negotiated between Iraq and the United States going to be ratified by the Senate? No. They're not. Surprised?

Gary Hart:

To seal the deal, with the expectation of binding future presidential successors, Mr. Bush and Iraq president Nouri al-Maliki are in the process of negotiating a "status of forces agreement" that would commit the U.S. military to combat any internal or external factions the Iraqi government deemed a threat. This represents a one-directional security treaty cloaked in the form of an agreement not subject to Senate ratification. And it guarantees U.S. involvement in age-old Iraqi sectarian conflict for decades to come.

And so by showing a picture of an old Roman fort from when they garrisoned England, a Time Magazine article from way, way back when, and a little current events, we come to the end of our history lesson for today.

It's beginning to look like "blue" skies and smooth sailing...

The GOP continues to flounder. I continue to find much heartfelt glee in this fact, and do not apologize for it. I never claimed to be non-partisan. I am an unapologetic Liberal Democrat.

Faced with Democrats running fundraising circles around Republicans -the DCCC has raised $56.6 million and has $29.2 million at its disposal, while the NRCC is sucking hind tit, having raised only $40.7 million, and showing a cash balance of $2.5 million. Faced with people not willing to bankroll losers, the lord high mucky-mucks of the GOP have resorted to recruiting obscenely wealthy individuals to run for office who can funnel millions of their own dollars into desperate efforts to buy seats. “National Republicans are in disarray, forcing them to recruit inexperienced and unprepared self-funders,” said Doug Thornell, a spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

But the news gets better for Democrats. Democrats now hold more Governor's mansions, and that gap looks like it is going to widen. While the Democrats might not make the magic number 60 in the Senate, they are likely to get close enough that they can strongarm moderate Republicans into backing off on their obstructionist ways. If five or more seats flip, that will likely serve as a wake-up call to some of the obstreperous jackasses in Class III and Class I, and their own sense of political self-survival will kick in.

In Virginia, the magic eight ball says that Mark Warner is going to take the seat being vacated by John Warner. The seats being vacated by Domenici (N.M.) and Stevens (AK) have a good shot of going to Democrats, if for no other reason than to teach the party a lesson - the Republican candidates are going to have the foul stench of their corrupt predecessors wafting behind them. Bob Kerry is likely to replace the retiring Chuck Hagel in Nebraska, Sununu is vulnerable in New Hampshire. Graham in South Carolina might prove vulnerable because he has lashed himself so tightly to aWol and his pet war. Kentucky is likely to Ditch Mitch, Larry Craig's seat just about has to go to a Democrat, Elizabeth Dole is vulnerable, and the seat held by Gordon Smith is all but assured to flip, possibly to Portland mayor Speaker of the Oregon House Jeff Merkley, although there is still a tough Democratic primary to get through. Whoever wins it will unseat Gordon.

[P.S. Thanks to all you Oregon readers for correcting me on this point - I know better than to blog while buzzing on Robitussin and Benadryl...I lived in the Willamette Valley for a bit in the 90's and to be perfectly honest, I am echoing a friend who is a Merkley backer. To hear her tell it, he is unopposed in the primary, and I'm firing off an email, since echoing her sentiment got my fanny handed to me. I'll look a bit closer and actually dedicate a post to the Democratic primary out there to show my contrition.]

And the outlook is even more dismal in the house, where unexpected retirements have dealt setbacks to the Republican pipedream of retaking the house. And I am left to savor the schaddenfreude and hum a happy tune...

How does Trent like being in the minority?

Apparently, not a Lott...

Minority Whip Trent Lott, (WATB-MS) is resigning, just a year after cruising to reelection in the 2006 mid-term election. His resignation is the greatest blow to a GOP that is hemorrhaging incumbents and experienced leadership, creating an atmosphere that the Republicans will remain in the minority in both the House and Senate for the foreseeable future.

Faced with the possibility that the voters, sick of the obstruction of the GOP, will send a fillibuster-proof Democratic majority to the Senate, Lott is packing it in. In that scenario, obstructionism would not work for the petulant party of perpetual war, borrow-and-spend fiscal irresponsibility, and fascistic domestic policies.

While many of the quitters on the GOP side of the aisle have held key committee and subcommittee posts, Lott is the first member of the leadership in either chamber to pack it in.

What Bob Geiger Said

Okay - bear with me here, I am running on three hours of sleep and four shots of espresso. After five p.m., I'm starting with two fingers of fine scotch.

It's over now, and I decided to go see what everyone was saying about what it all means.

I really didn't need to go any further than the always-excellent Bob Geiger. He has an uncanny gift for looking beyond the screaming bloody obvious and get to the underlying significance. Rather than rehash, I am simply crossposting:

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

The Overnight Iraq Debate: By The Numbers

The last 24 hours have been a wild ride in the United States Senate with Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) forcing the Republicans to stand before the American people and openly explain why they believe it's a good idea to keep U.S. troops in Iraq indefinitely. While Republicans managed to again block a Democratic measure to end the war -- this time, the Levin-Reed amendment -- the outpouring of support for the extended and up-front dialog has been amazing.

I have some numbers to help quantify that for you, along with some sad figures that show the true cost of Republicans caring too much about George W. Bush's legacy and not enough about the troops or national security.

Support across the country for changing course in Iraq

• 59,603 - Faxes (and still counting) sent to Senators in support of Levin-Reed Amendment

• 10 – Iraq Veterans who spent the day lobbying Senators for a change of course in Iraq.

• 155 - Events held around the country hosted by Americans Against Escalation, Moveon.org, and the “Iraq Summer Campaign” in support of changing course in Iraq. [Americans Against Escalation in Iraq Memo, 7/18/07]

• 450 – People who attended a Call to Action by Candlelight in Upper Senate Park.

• 21 – Democratic Senators who attended a Call to Action by Candlelight in Upper Senate Park.

• 57 – Democratic House members who attended Call to Action by Candlelight in Upper Senate Park.

• 33 – Democratic Senators who spoke on the floor in favor of a change of course in Iraq. [Senate Floor Proceedings, 7/17/07, 7/18/07]

• 2 – New Senators to vote for a change of course in Iraq. [Senate Vote 252, HR 1585, 7/18/07]

Costs of war in Iraq continue to rise

• 3 - U.S. soldiers reported killed in Iraq on July 17. [icasualties.org]

• 168 - Iraqis reported killed on July 17. [IraqSlogger.com, 7/17/07]

• 86 – Iraqis reported wounded on July 17. [www.IraqSlogger.com, 7/17/07]

• $322 Million – Amount of taxpayer dollars spent in Iraq on July 17. [CRS, 6/28/07]

Grand Obstruction Party blocks efforts to change course in Iraq

• 8 – Number of times Republicans obstructed giving the Levin-Reed amendment a majority vote. [Senate Floor Proceedings, 7/17/07, 7/18/07]

• 7 – Number of Republican Senators who have recently spoken out against escalation and for redeployment, but who voted against changing course in Iraq. Senate Vote 252, HR 1585, 7/18/07]

I guess we'll hold off on the Desperate Buzzphrase Count, showing how many times Republicans took to the floor and said "cut and run," "precipitous withdrawal," and "retreat and defeat" over the last two days.

The numbers above tell the story just fine.

posted by Bob Geiger at 7/18/2007 02:40:00 PM

Senate passes war funding resolution, with deadline for withdrawal

The Democratic controlled Senate today held firm and passed a war-funding resolution that carries a deadline for withdrawal of March, 2008. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the moment was nigh to "send a message to President Bush that the time has come to find a new way forward in this intractable war."

Of course, President Bush – who knows nothing of war himself – threatened to veto any legislation that carries any “date certain’ for withdrawal of troops, and Mitch McConnell, always a reliable Bush boot-lick said the Democrats were insisting on a “surrender date.”

"That's not surprising from a White House that has stubbornly refused to change course even in the face of dwindling support from American people whose sons and daughters are dying" said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont.

The ball is in Bush’s court now. So let him veto it. Let it be his signature that cuts off funding. Let him tell the troops in so many words that they are expendable and he will keep this clusterfuck going for as long as he chooses, and he will by-God get just as many of them killed for his lies as he wants, and Congress and the American people can just go hang. He’s the “Decider” after all.

He can try to spin it however he wants, but the fact remains, the houses of Congress are no longer stacked to the rafters with loyal Bush millions, and he will play ball, or it will be a long and miserable 21 months. Given his approval rating is hovering at 28% and 70% of the people in this country are realistic about the situation in Iraq, just let him try to play the blame game. I don’t just dare him…I double dog dare him.