One thing I never understand about libertarians is how they focus on how, say, environmental regulations enslave us all! and don't seem to give a shit about real-life, obvious infringements of freedom. Is it because they only care when it affects corporations? Or maybe they only care when it affects white people, unlike this story about reporting while black:
“What’s The New York Times doing down here?” asked an incredulous
black man. He and about a dozen other men were standing in front of a
clapboard house in Salisbury[, North Carolina]. I observed several drug sales there
within minutes of arriving.
“Man, you a cop,” said another. “Hey, this guy’s a cop!”
got me wrong,” I said trying to sound casual as the men looked at me
warily. I started to pull my press identification out of my wallet.
“I’m a reporter. I’m just trying to talk to you about your
In the distance I heard neighborhood lookouts
calling: “Five-O! Five-O!” — a universal code in American ghettos for
the approaching police. I thought they were talking about me, but
thought again as three police cars skidded to a stop in front of us.
tall white police officer got out of his car and ordered me toward him.
Two other police officers, a white woman and a black man, stood outside
of their cars nearby. I complied. Without so much as a question, the
officer shoved my face down on the sheet metal and cuffed me so tightly
that my fingertips tingled.
“They’re on too tight!” I protested.
“They’re not meant for comfort,” he replied.
After a quick check for
outstanding warrants, the handcuffs were unlocked and my wallet
returned without apology or explanation beyond their implication that
my approaching young black men on a public sidewalk was somehow
flouting the law.
“This is a dangerous area,” the officer told me. “You can’t just stand out here. We have ordinances.”
is America,” I said angrily, in that moment supremely unconcerned about
whether this was standard police procedure or a useful law enforcement
tool or whatever anybody else wanted to call it. “I have a right to
talk to anyone I like, wherever I like.”
The female officer trumped my naïve soliloquy, though: “Sir, this is the South. We have different laws down here.”
Then we get the comedy:
I tried to appeal to the African-American officer out of some sense of solidarity.
“This is bad area,” he told me. “We have to protect ourselves out here.”
As the police drove away, I turned again to my would-be interview subjects. Surely now they believed I was a reporter.
I found their skepticism had only deepened.
you know what would have happened to one of us if we talked to them
that way?” said one disbelieving man as he walked away from me and my
blank notebook. “We’d be in jail right now.”
Another one of the features of libertarian ideology that I find ridiculous is the idea that local government is necessarily more freedom-loving than state government, and state government better than the federal government. When in fact it's the state and local governments that are usually the most freedom-depriving, captured by faction and not subject to scrutiny by anything like a functioning press. Until some reporter from a powerful institution like the NYTimes decides to show up, and then it's an issue for 5 minutes, maybe 6. Without that amplification, no one ever even hears about it.
Recently in "coming out" as a Baptist, McCain said, "The important thing is I am a Christian". That was right-wing code speech meant to denote a general assertion of personal faith but implying that Romney was not a Christian. In a more recent talk with beliefnet, much has (rightly) been made already of the pull-quote, "I would probably have to say yes, that the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation", but the rest is pretty revealing, too:
Has the candidates’ personal faith become too big an issue in the presidential race? Questions about that are very legitimate.... And it's also appropriate
for me at certain points in the conversation to say, look, that's sort
of a private matter between me and my Creator.... But I think the
number one issue people should make [in the] selection of the President
of the United States is, 'Will this person carry on in the Judeo
Christian principled tradition that has made this nation the greatest
experiment in the history of mankind?'
Here he's trying to set the frame so he can have it both ways. On one hand, he thinks whether the candidate will "carry on in the Judeo Christian principled [sic] tradition" is a "very legitimate" question. But he knows he can be pressed on his sincerity, because he's a lying bastard, so he also reserves the right to say, "look, that's sort of a private matter between me and my Creator".
It doesn't seem like a Muslim candidate would do very well, according to that standard.
I admire the Islam. There's a lot of good principles in it. I think one of the great tragedies of the 21st century is that these forces of evil have perverted what's basically an honorable religion. But, no, I just have to say in all candor that since this nation was founded primarily on Christian principles.... personally, I prefer someone who I know who has a solid grounding in my faith. But that doesn't mean that I'm sure that someone who is Muslim would not make a good president. I don't say that we would rule out under any circumstances someone of a different faith. I just would--I just feel that that's an important part of our qualifications to lead.*
(Emphasis supplied.) Here's more code-speech. First, he's saying - without saying it - that Islam is incompatible with American values. That wins him Brownie points with the base. Second - since the Muslim presidential candidate thing is purely speculative, he's saying that, insofar as you believe Mormonism is not Christianity, Romney's unfit to be president. And the questioner gets right to that:
People are raising similar concerns about Mitt Romney’s Mormonism, which some consider to be outside the Judeo-Christian tradition.
I believe that the Mormon religion is a religion that I don't share, but I respect. More importantly, I've known so many people of the Mormon faith who have been so magnificent. I think that Governor Romney's religion should not, absolutely not, be a disqualifying factor when people consider his candidacy for President of the United States, absolutely not.
So again, he's saying he puts Mormonism on the same footing as Islam, a religion he "respects" but does not "share". If he thought Mormonism was a Christian religion, he would say he shares the same set of beliefs. He doesn't. So the last sentence is a lie.
A recent poll found that 55 percent of Americans believe the U.S. Constitution establishes a Christian nation. What do you think?
I would probably have to say yes, that the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation. But I say that in the broadest sense. The lady that holds her lamp beside the golden door doesn't say, “I only welcome Christians.” We welcome the poor, the tired, the huddled masses. But when they come here they know that they are in a nation founded on Christian principles.
"Founded on Christian principles" means only Christians should rule. More code-speech for the Christianist base.
*McCain contacted Beliefnet after the interview to clarify his remarks: “I would vote for a Muslim if he or she was the candidate best able to lead the country and defend our political values.”
Meaning, "I would vote for a Muslim in crazy bizarro world where that Muslim was a Christian."
Liberalism's future Maureen Dowds and Tom Friedmans hash out their personal differences. You know, they'll still be miffed about stuff like this - and still think it matters - 30 years from now. Assholes.
[T]he leader of a white supremacist group in Mississippi published
interviews that he conducted with the mayor of Jena and the white
teenager who was attacked and beaten, allegedly by the six black
youths. In those interviews, the mayor, Murphy McMillin, praised
efforts by pro-white groups to organize counterdemonstrations; the
teenager, Justin Barker, urged white readers to "realize what is going
on, speak up and speak their mind." ...
McMillin has insisted that his town is being unfairly portrayed as racist—an assertion the mayor repeated in an interview with Richard Barrett, the leader of the Nationalist Movement, a white supremacist group based in Learned, Miss., who asked McMillin to "set aside some place for those opposing the colored folks."
"I am not endorsing any demonstrations, but I do appreciate what you are trying to do," Barrett quoted McMillin as saying. "Your moral support means a lot."
McMillin declined to return calls seeking comment Monday.
Barker's father, David, said his family did not know the nature of Barrett's group when they agreed to be interviewed, adding, "I am not a white supremacist, and neither is my son."
But Barrett said he explained his group and its beliefs to the Barker family, who then invited him to stay overnight at their home on the eve of last week's protest march.
It's too bad we don't have a Democrat in the White House right now, or a Republican with any principles. Because the families of the six kids who were locked up may need protection before this is over.
At DL last night, I tried to get Brendan riled up by saying, "Hillary Clinton will almost certainly be the Democratic nominee, and the next President". Now, you have to understand, politically Brendan makes me look like Dick Cheney. But he just said, "You're probably right." I was going to blog that this morning, but had second thoughts because, well, it's September 2007. But then Scott Lemieux writes:
Understanding that a lot can happen, etc., and without quite being
ready enough to say "lock," I think that it's pretty much over.
And apparently Ezra Klein and Matt Yglesias agree. I think it's interesting that people seem to be drawing this conclusion independently and at the same time. For me, it's the realization that Clinton has a number of factors in her favor, has campaigned hard and will continue to do so, and has access to lots of money.
We'll have to see whether this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy with regard to the nomination.
Scott also says:
I think she's both the least progressive and the weakest presidential
candidate of [her, Obama and Edwards.]
Least progressive, without a doubt. Weakest candidate? On what planet? People keep talking about her high negatives, as if they could go higher. You want to throw out historical precedents about people with high negatives becoming the nominee, then I think that's exactly what you should do - throw them out. Bill Clinton's presidency and Hillary's tenure as First Lady were sui generis. You can't make historical analogies because you never had the right-wing attack machine crank up like that before.
The way I see it, her negatives can't go any higher, while Edwards' and Obama's would skyrocket if the GOP guns were trained on them. What can you say about Hillary that hasn't already been said? On the other hand, it would be easy to dirty up Edwards or Obama. Easy. And that leaves them trying to counter that mudslinging all campaign. I think people are gravitating toward Hillary, consciously or not, because she has been there before and knows what to do. Unlike Kerry. Unlike Gore, even.
Now, who will be the GOP nominee? Back in May I said McCain, because obviously my crystal ball was out being repaired. I thought after Bush the Republicans would go for substance, even if he wasn't pure conservative. Well, I guess I was wrong. Once again, I underestimated how fucking insane the Republican base is.
So, who would I like the GOP nominee to be? Guiliani. He knows nothing and it shows. And he's arrogant and aggressive, which will lead him into a whole heap of trouble real fast. Second, Thompson, because I think he'll come off as an empty suit. Least favorite: Romney. As someone said at DL last night, "He'd be toughest to beat because he'll lie his ass off. He'll lie to the right wing to get nominated, then he'll lie to the center to try to win." And I added that our press corps would do jack shit to call him on it, so I think that's right. I guess Huckabee's a wild card, but I still don't take him seriously.
State Senator Ernie Chambers is suing God. He says it to prove a point about frivolous lawsuits.
Chambers says senators periodically have offered bills prohibiting the filing of certain types of suits. He says his main objection is the constitution requires that the doors to the courthouse be open to all. Chambers said, "Thus anybody can file a lawsuit against anybody - even God."
Chambers said he decided to file this lawsuit after a suit was filed in early September in federal court against Lancaster County Judge Jeffre Cheuvront. He's the judge who was hearing a sexual assault case, where the woman wants to use the words "rape and victim" during her testimony.
Chambers lawsuit, which was filed on Friday in Douglas County Court, seeks a permanent injunction ordering God to cease certain harmful activities and the making of terroristic threats.
The lawsuit admits God goes by all sorts of alias, names, titles and designations and it also recognizes the fact that the defendant is “Omnipresent”.
In the lawsuit Chambers says he’s tried to contact God numerous times, “Plaintiff, despite reasonable efforts to effectuate personal service upon Defendant (“Come out, come out, wherever you are”) has been unable to do so.”
Funny. Lest Sen. Chambers be misinterpreted, what's he's trying to show here is that constitutionally anyone can sue anyone else for anything, and then the courts go from there to sort out fact from fiction. And that's a good thing, because that's the only way you can enforce your legal rights. The court's whole job is to listen to what you have to say (hey, that's why it's called a "hearing") before throwing you out on your ass.
"I believe that we have the power to deter Iran, should it become nuclear," [John Abizaid] said, referring to the theory that Iran would not risk a catastrophic retaliatory strike by using a nuclear weapon against the United States.
"There are ways to live with a nuclear Iran," Abizaid said in remarks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank. "Let's face it, we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we've lived with a nuclear China, and we're living with (other) nuclear powers as well." ...
Abizaid stressed the dangers of allowing more and more nations to build a nuclear arsenal. And while he said it is likely that Iran will make a technological breakthrough to obtain a nuclear bomb, "it's not inevitable." ...
Abizaid suggested military action to pre-empt Iran's nuclear ambitions might not be the wisest course.
"War, in the state-to-state sense, in that part of the region would be devastating for everybody, and we should avoid it — in my mind — to every extent that we can," he said. "On the other hand, we can't allow the Iranians to continue to push in ways that are injurious to our vital interests."
He suggested that many in Iran — perhaps even some in the Tehran government — are open to cooperating with the West. The thrust of his remarks was a call for patience in dealing with Iran, which President Bush early in his first term labeled one of the "axis of evil" nations, along with North Korea and Iraq.
He said there is a basis for hope that Iran, over time, will move away from its current anti-Western stance. ...
Abizaid expressed confidence that the United States and the world community can manage the Iran problem.
"I believe the United States, with our great military power, can contain Iran — that the United States can deliver clear messages to the Iranians that makes it clear to them that while they may develop one or two nuclear weapons they'll never be able to compete with us in our true military might and power," he said.
Republican presidential candidate John McCain said Monday that questions over whether he identifies himself as a Baptist or an Episcopalian are not as important as his overarching faith. "The most important thing is that I am a Christian," the Arizona senator told reporters following two campaign stops in [South Carolina]. ...
McCain grew up Episcopalian and attended an Episcopal high school in Alexandria, Va. On Monday, he spoke briefly about that history and about the Baptist church he now attends. Then, after saying his overall faith is what's important, he concluded: "I don't have anything else to say about that issue."
"You see, Abdul, Yitzak and Mitt, this is a Christian nation. And I shall be its king. Booyah!" McCain continued.
For within 30 minutes of birth, barring any medical complications,
Molly will be handed by doctors to social workers. They have
instructions to take away Fran's newborn baby and place her in foster
The 22-year-old will then be transferred from the maternity
wing to a gynaecological ward, because Northumberland Council has
decided that Fran - who has never harmed anyone in her life - is
potentially a risk to other mothers and their babies.
Fran [Lyon] has no idea if she will be able to touch her baby, even
for a minute, before leaving hospital alone, or if she will ever get
her daughter back. Her biggest fear is that she won't, and that Molly
will be put up for adoption.
[Independence Day] was probably the last movie produced in Hollywood that even vaguely resembled a patriotic depiction of war and our military. Of course, in order for that to be acceptable, the enemy had to be repulsive aliens who only wanted us all to die.
Instead of, as today, repulsive religious freaks who only want us all to die. But don’t expect Hollywood to give us a movie that shows the US President flying lead in a successful F-15 attack intended to annihilate them.
It is an outrage that even Jews cannot discuss [the power of the Israel lobby] without being accused of antisemitism or "anti-Judaism". It is absolutely clear that many of the people who are lodging these accusations are themselves antisemites who actually hope that every single person who does not believe in Jesus will die in the conflagration they want "pro-Israel" policy to cause, and ludicrous to accuse those who hope for a more peaceful solution to the Middle-east's problems of "antisemitism".
[T]he United States' top generals must understand that their duty is
to win, not just to get along. They must have the insight and character
to demand the resources necessary to succeed -- and have the guts to
either obtain what they need or to resign. If they get their way and
still don't emerge victorious, they must be replaced. That is the lot
they accepted when they pinned on those four shiny silver stars.
all else, we Americans must understand that the goal of war is to
achieve a specific purpose for the nation. In this respect, the
military is simply a tool of statecraft, one that must work in tandem
with diplomacy, economic suasion, intelligence and other instruments of
U.S. power. How tragic it is to see old men who are unwilling to talk
to potential adversaries but seem ready to dispatch young people to
fight and die.
I think we all are clear on the craven, buffoonish nature of men like Dick Cheney by this point. Their hands grown too accustomed to the levers of power, their minds too steeped in ideologies of force, they're the ones who lunge forward at a moment of national crisis and steer the country down a dead-end path. We've about come to the end of the road, and the political story of the next decade will be trying to come back from what the necons plunged us into after 9/11.
But Clark's other point is about the integrity of military officers. Power and the ambition for more of it corrupts them, too. Not the corruption of greed, but the corruption of the replacement of their principle of service with arrogance and self-importance. Any officer who attains those four stars has consciously worked very hard to get them, and having achieved them, wants to retain the favor of those above him. But as Clark says, it is fatal for any officer to put pleasing his superiors above the duty to see the situation clearly. I am not saying David Petraeus lies. I am saying that it's far more likely, and insidious, to unknowingly betray the country through weakness of character than through intentionally not telling the truth. Westmoreland did it in Vietnam. Franks did it in Afghanistan. And now Petraeus is doing it in Iraq.
last january bush claims he told the iraqi government that it must meet
all of the benchmarks and warned maliki that "America's commitment is
not open-ended." so since even the white house reports that there
wasn't even satisfactory progress towards achieving more than
half of the benchmarks, bush announces that america's commitment to
iraq will be open-ended, or as he put it to extend "beyond my
presidency". meanwhile, bush's aids are talking about "the korea model",
referencing the american military presence in south korea that has
lasted for the past half century and will probably extend through the
rest of my lifetime. it doesn't get any more open-ended than that.
short, last january, bush set certain benchmarks, said they must be met
and proclaimed that the u.s. will not be in iraq forever, especially if
the benchmarks weren't met. last night, bush barely mentioned the
benchmarks, which were mostly unmet, and announced to the world that
the u.s. has no intention of leaving ever.
so much for accountability.
You know, I wonder sometimes if the Republican candidates for President ever think, "If I do get elected, am I ever fucked."
Hi there! You! Yes, you, I am talking to you, you empty-headed twit, crossing against the light. Hi! I should run your ass down and do the world a favor, but then I remember I was 18 once.
No, don't speak. I did not slam on my brakes with my front bumper inches from your shins because I wanted to hear you yap. Shut the fuck up and listen. Are you listening?
Welcome to West Philadelphia. Things are a little different here than what you might expect in ... wherever the hell you are from. Oh, New Jersey? What a surprise. I thought I told you to shut the fuck up.
See all this traffic out here? It's like a speedway ... that you walked into the middle of. This is called rush hour and - see all these people? - they are all trying to get onto something called the Schuylkill, where they will weave in and out of traffic for a frustrating hour to go twenty miles, and they're realllly anxious to get started on that ... and you're in their way. If you want to go on living and enjoying your fashionable .... whateverthe fuck that is that you're wearing, you should keep your head up when crossing streets.
And you were looking tense. I don't mean now, when I am screaming in your face, you should be tense now. I meant before. What's the problem, young shithead? Is it ... could it be... maybe ... you're scared of all the black people around here? You probably aren't used to the concept of people having different color skin, being from suburban Republican hell like you are.
Since you're so clearly bright, you'll probably figure out that people are people about the time you get set to graduate. In the meantime, follow some simple rules. Make eye contact. Speak when spoken to. Get the fuck out of people's way. When you're north of Market or south of Baltimore, or anywhere after dark, take off the fucking iPod and put it the fuck away. Remember, they hate you just as much as you hate them, except they're right. Following these simple rules will extend the duration of your worthless life and make you seem like less of an asshole.
[Prison is] a hermetically sealed social system which really only teaches
inmates to thrive within its confines, not in the larger world to which
they presumably intend to return. In that sense, it's basically high
Culture is not an object of reform except accidentally, and history shows very few positive outcomes from the desire to make it one. It's one thing to purify a drinking water supply, and quite another to purify arts and letters.
Osama pretties himself up by dyeing his beard and speaks:
Bin Laden makes no overt threats and does not directly call for
attacks, according to the transcript, which was first posted by ABC
News on its Web site.
Instead, he addresses Americans, lecturing them on the failures of
their leaders to stop the war in Iraq despite growing public opposition
in the U.S.
"There are two solutions to stopping it. One is from our side, and it
is to escalate the fighting and killing against you. This is our duty,
and our brothers are carrying it out," bin Laden said.
"The second solution is from your side. I invite you to embrace Islam," he said.
One result of that, bin Laden said, would be an end to the Iraq war. He
said "warmongering owners of the major corporations" would rush to
appease voters who showed they are looking for an alternative, "and
this alternative is Islam."
Right, dude. What I was looking for was a medieval religion so that I, too, could apply Just For Men in a cave while eating a lamb that was the first female animal I had seen in a year and a half and scheming to drag Saudi Arabia from the 19th century back to the 12th.
Actually, I have a better idea: Why don't I help elect a President who will go into Pakistan and hunt your ass down? Yeah, that's a much better idea.
But I can't help but notice that Bin Laden's rhetoric on the Iraq war is exactly the same as rightwingers here in America. He takes credit on behalf of al Qaeda for opposing the U.S. there, just like the rightwingers. And he says that they will go on fighting us until we convert to Islam, just like the rightwingers do.
Hmmm. I wonder. Has anyone ever seen Osama and Michelle Malkin in the same place?
Islam lacks a hierarchy that can enforce orthodoxy. Anyone can
proclaim himself an “Imam” and start issuing doctrinal claims. He will
attain just as much authority as his powers of persuasion.
If you think about it, the Islamophobic Right are setting themselves up as Imams
of a sort. I’m talking about the bedwetters at LGF and Jihadwatch and
Gates of Vienna and WND and beyond, the professors and pundits who
insist that the Koran “really means” that all Muslims must engage in
violent holy war against non-Muslims, and that any Muslim who doesn’t
do this is “a bad Muslim.” ...
[A]side from the absurdity of a bunch of haoles declaring
themselves the authoritative interpreters of a religion they don’t
practice and don’t even like, think of the pragmatic problems. There
are clearly lay Muslims and Muslim clergy who argue against the
doctrine that all Muslims are obligated to wage real war on all
non-Muslims. Why would Westerners try to cut the legs out from under
these people? What moron tells the Muslim in the next cubicle or across
the counter or down the street, “No, you fool! You need to try to kill
The only answer I can come up with is, “the stupid kind of moron.” Going forward, I think we need to start referring to these people as what they are, radical Imams.
Promulgators of anti-Western interpretations of Muslim doctrine. Mullah
Atlas. Mullah Johnson. Mullah Malkin. Mullah Farah. Mullah Pipes. By
their own logic, we should deport them. Okay, we should clap them into
camps and torture them by their own logic, but I’m against that kind of
To recap, first the public was incorrectly led to believe that Gen. David Petraeus would issue his own report about the situation on the ground in Iraq. Then the Los Angeles Times reported that the so-called “Petraeus report” would “actually be written by the White House.”
Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) then suggested the White House would probably “tweak” the “Petraeus report.” In an effort to put the controversy to rest, Gen. David Petraeus assured lawmakers that the White House was not going to be involved in the “writing” of the report:
Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-Fla.), told reporters Thursday that Petraeus said he and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker had briefed the administration on the situation in Iraq, but added that “as far as [Petraeus] is concerned … he is writing his recommendations of that report and testimony.”
Now, apparently there will be no written report from Gen. Petraeus at all. While Petraeus’ statement to Congress will be made available, the public will not know what information he is providing to President Bush.
Comical. Hey, you think they'll do a Gonzales and demand that Petraeus not testify under oath or in public, and that there be no transcript?
I'm sure a couple of things are happening here. Obviously, the news is bad and they can't figure out how to spin it. An optimistic written report would be a tangible thing with details that could be, you know, refuted. Instead, they'd rather have testimony (from a guy with medals) which would give a gooey, on-one-hand-on-the-other impression, accompanied by pretty charts. Also, Petraeus doesn't want to go down like Colin Powell did, presenting a report with his signature on it that later makes him a laughingstock.
While vacationing in Philadelphia, my family attended two of the recent Phillies-Mets contests at beautiful Citizens Bank Park.
We endured a number of comments on our Mets apparel the first day, some good-natured, but many mean-spirited. This seemed to escalate on the second occasion, as the Phillies neared a four-game sweep. A fight in the stands far from our seats prompted a man sitting next to me to bellow "Kill the Mets fan!" This sent my 10-year old son into fearful sobs.
Following the Phillies' come-from-behind victory, things went from bad to worse. As we walked toward the subway, we were confronted over and over by people who ran up to us and screamed in our faces.
The Phillies play with a lot of heart. It's too bad they play in a town that has none.
Edward J. O'Neill Watervliet, N.Y.
I have attended more than 50 Major League Baseball games in at least 12 different stadiums, including Shea Stadium, where the Mets play. Wherever I go, people comment on the behavior of the Philadelphia fan.
I have always been quick to defend city fans.
However, the game against the Mets Aug. 29, which I attended with my sons, proved that the rumors about Phillies fans' bad behavior are true. It was a sad commentary on the lack of control the Phillies have over their fans.
I have seen people ejected from games in other venues for far less than what I saw at Citizens Bank Park. Regrettably, I can no longer defend our fans to others.
Unlike the Eagles, the Phillies seem to be indifferent or even supportive of bad fan behavior. They must figure that the things that fill the seats are winning and a pretty park, so they don't need to make an example of people who regularly get out of hand.
Another top aide resigned from Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson's campaign, as the former Tennessee senator made his White House bid official.
Mark Corallo, who resigned yesterday, according to a campaign official, was one of the first people to join Thompson. Corallo served as a spokesman and early strategist. Thompson formally declared his candidacy in a video posted on his Web site just after midnight today.
Corallo's resignation follows the departure of spokesman Jim Mills and comes just days after Thompson's communications director and another spokeswoman left the campaign. Thompson in recent months also lost acting campaign manager Tom Collamore and several other aides.
"There appears to be something dysfunctional inside the Thompson campaign,'' said Barry Burden, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. "He has been hemorrhaging staff pretty consistently without any explanation.''
Corallo is one of my favorite people, because by following him I can always tell where the scumbag Republicans are throwing their support. Now that he's quit Thompson's campaign, we'll have to see if he lands elsewhere or goes back into lobbying.
Criticism of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's leadership has been growing in the run-up to this month's series of reports to Congress on political and security progress since President Bush dispatched nearly 30,000 more American troops to Iraq.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, have called for al-Maliki to be replaced.
"Regrettably these statements made by U.S. officials sometimes exceed reasonable limits and at the same time send regrettable messages which help terrorists think that the security situation in the country is weak and the political forces are not cohesive," al-Maliki told reporters.
He added that critics are sending "negative messages that encourage terrorism."