SayNoToPombo tallied the NRCC’s totaled expenditures to date in California’s 11th Congressional District to more than $1.3 million.

Much more telling is the fact that after the NRCC paid for yet another internal survey yesterday, they reacted by making an independent expenditure today of $636,925 for television advertising. Taken together with their other expenditures for this week (the usual phone banks plus smear mailer number 18) their spending for the week stands at $681,750. Put that together with their previous contributions, and the total NRCC independent expenditures on behalf of Richard Pombo now stand at $1,331,123.

So if you believe Carl Fogliani when he tells you that those NRCC polls don’t show Richard Pombo in trouble — well, damn, there’s really NO one that gullible, is there? [original emphasis]

Site Related These last two months, I have really missed blogging on a regular basis and plan to make a return to daily blogging on all things politics. I also plan to move the site — yet again — however, this time, I am hoping to make the move to my own domain. Keep an eye out for it.

Joe Klein attacked liberal bloggers once again. I think he is just a little bitter about his one-post flop at the Huffington Post.

He appeared on Scarborough Country to talk about the Rush Limbaugh/Michael J. Fox/Parkinson’s Disease thing and had this to say (via C&L):

KLEIN: And I got to say that, you know, for the vice president of the United States to legitimize a guy like Rush Limbaugh is every bit as bad as all those Democrats who went out to Las Vegas to kiss the ring of the Daily Kos and the left-wing bloggers. I mean, can’t we—can’t we just stop this crap? [original emphasis]

First of all, I take offense to that comment because I didn’t get any rings kissed this past June in Las Vegas.

Secondly, Democrats engaging with concerned members of the party that care about things like healthcare, the Iraq occupation, corruption in D.C., etc. is nowhere near the same as “Dead Eye” Dick Cheney legitimizing Rush Limbaugh’s callous and ignorant attack on Michael J. Fox. They simply do not compare. For Joe Klein to even make that kind of comparison just shows how much he disdains the liberal blogosphere. In fact, he went out of his way to bash liberal bloggers and the Democrats that came out in June.

Truth is, there are plenty of online pontificators that I look forward to read. This opposed to the dribble Klein slaps together for Time.

Klein serves absolutely no purpose. He’s suppose to be the liberal voice of TIME Magazine. Earlier this year, Klein wrote that the Left has a “hate America tendency” that caused much uproar among those of us that actually subscribe to the ideals of progressive Americans. (Unlike Joe Klein.)

Back in May, I called him out on it in a washingtonpost.com Q&A. I expressed my outrage at his assertion that the Left hates America; a reinforcement of a bogus right-wing talking point.

Here was his response:

Joe Klein: I never said that the left hates America. I said the Left sometimes indulges in “hate America” rhetoric, especially when it comes to foreign policy. I’ve said that some on the left have the knee-jerk assumption that America is always wrong when it uses force–and that others on the left seem to assume that America is a malignant force in the world. I respect your patriotism and your right to criticize the government–I do it myself just about every week in my column. But I have no time for those who assume our country is somehow evil.

So the Left doesn’t “hate America.” It just uses words that, in his opinion, express hate for America…? Media Matters didn’t seem to think there was a difference. It seems to me that Joe was just parsing to cover his ass.

Furthermore, I don’t know what liberals Joe Klein associates himself with or observes. Many liberals support our ongoing, albeit botched, efforts in Afghanistan. I am not aware of any Democrats that speak out against the use of force in the hunt for Osama bin Laden. In fact, it is Democrats that want to refocus the nation’s attention on al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

My objection to the Afghanistan campaign is that the Bush administration completely mismanaged that conflict years ago. Sending too few forces, a recurring theme in the Bush White House, and diverting resources to the misadventure in Iraq, have allowed an unfinished job turn into a Taliban resurgence. This after five years of combat operations and the al-Qaeda leader still a fugutive from U.S. forces. The job wasn’t finished prior to Iraq. And due to that, the Taliban and al-Qaeda are adopting tactics used by those in Iraq in an attempt to reclaim power, despite what Bill O’Reilly believes to be “a myth.”

(If I may add on the Joe Klein-front; for someone who thinks they do not “have time for those who assume our country is somehow evil,” he sure likes to bitch about them a lot. The “them” being real or imaginary doesn’t seem to matter.)

There are many reasons to oppose the use of “harsh interrogation methods,” i.e. torture.

First of all, the United States of America was once above such tactics. I grew up believing that, as Americans, we were better than that. As Americans, we abhorred those that reduced themselves to that barbaric level.

Or so I thought.

Secondly, on an intelligence-gathering level, torture is not effective. It produces bad information because victims of torture will say anything for it to stop, which includes passing false information. In fact, passing false information is probably the best defense for those in that position to fall back on. The torturing stops and their adversary is led off on the wrong path; perhaps complicating the situation and making things worse than before the interrogation.

Thirdly, the use of torture could heavily damages a prosecutor’s case and inhibit any legitimate attempts to prosecute prisoners, including terrorists.

From MSNBC (via Think Progress):

Mohammed al-Qahtani, detainee No. 063, was forced to wear a bra. He had a thong placed on his head. He was massaged by a female interrogator who straddled him like a lap dancer. He was told that his mother and sisters were whores. He was told that other detainees knew he was gay. He was forced to dance with a male interrogator. He was strip-searched in front of women. He was led on a leash and forced to perform dog tricks. He was doused with water. He was prevented from praying. He was forced to watch as an interrogator squatted over his Koran.

That much is known. These details were among the findings of the U.S. Army’s investigation of al-Qahtani’s aggressive interrogation at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Here’s reaffirmation of premises two and three listed above:

In interviews with MSNBC.com — the first time they have spoken publicly — former senior law enforcement agents described their attempts to stop the abusive interrogations. The agents of the Pentagon’s Criminal Investigation Task Force, working to build legal cases against suspected terrorists, said they objected to coercive tactics used by a separate team of intelligence interrogators soon after Guantanamo’s prison camp opened in early 2002. They ultimately carried their battle up to the office of Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, who approved the more aggressive techniques to be used on al-Qahtani and others.

Although they believed the abusive techniques were probably illegal, the Pentagon cops said their objection was practical. They argued that abusive interrogations were not likely to produce truthful information, either for preventing more al-Qaida attacks or prosecuting terrorists.

And they described their disappointment when military prosecutors told them not to worry about making a criminal case against al-Qahtani, the suspected “20th hijacker” of Sept. 11, because what had been done to him would prevent him from ever being put on trial. [emphasis added]

Destroying our moral authority in the world and inhibiting our efforts in the “War on Terror.” That’s what you call a “twofer.”

Now, I know this kind of deluded, Bill O’Reilly-esque “No I didn’t” type talk should be expected from the Bush administration but this is wrong on so many levels.

Think Progress offered a few of the many — many — instances when President Bush vowed to “stay the course.”

Bush is wrong:

BUSH: We will stay the course. [8/30/06]

BUSH: We will stay the course, we will complete the job in Iraq. [8/4/05]

BUSH: We will stay the course until the job is done, Steve. And the temptation is to try to get the President or somebody to put a timetable on the definition of getting the job done. We’re just going to stay the course. [12/15/03]

BUSH: And my message today to those in Iraq is: We’ll stay the course. [4/13/04]

BUSH: And that’s why we’re going to stay the course in Iraq. And that’s why when we say something in Iraq, we’re going to do it. [4/16/04]

BUSH: And so we’ve got tough action in Iraq. But we will stay the course. [4/5/04]

Bush was hocking this one-liner to the American people up until when? A few minutes prior to the interview?

Aren’t there GOP incumbents and candidates still using the “stay the course” language? It seems to me that Bush’s claim is egg on their face.

“Stay the course” is such a bad idea that even President Bush is backing away from it. A man who vowed not to leave Iraq, even if it was just his wife and dog supporting him.

What political ads have caught your eye this election season? Fox’s ad for McCaskill certainly ranks toward the top. The VoteVets.org ads against Senators George Allen (R-Viriginia), Rick Santorum (R-Pennsylvania), Conrad Burns (R-Montana), Jon Kyl (R-Arizona) and Talent are right there as well.

Post your favorites.

From Say No To Pombo:

Here’s the relevant part of the letter: “I am proud of what I have been able to accomplish for our district.

So if you have any questions for me, please call me, and I will personally answer any remaining questions you may have about any of these issues.

My home phone number is (209) 836-3326.

I truly thank you for giving me the privilege of serving you. I have done my best and would be honored to continue to represent you.”

Babaloo has a few suggestions:

Why won’t you debate Jerry McNerney?

Why did you cast the deciding vote in favor of CAFTA?

Why won’t you denounce Dennis Hastert for covering up Mark Foley’s predatory behavior towards House pages?

Does it concern you that the co-author of your book, Joseph Farah, feels that you and your party are unworthy of governing the country?

Why did you take a leave of absence from the House Transportation committee when your district has two of the three worst commutes in the entire Bay Area?

Hank Shaw is asking people to give him a call and report their findings.

My suggestion: “What’s it like being in the pocket of corporate special interests? Is it dark in there?”