Pages

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Welcome to NORAD Tracks Santa

         

All the preparations for this year are in place! Come back each day to receive updates from the North Pole and to discover new surprises in the Kids' Countdown Village.
Santa’s Village
Santa’s elves have been busier than usual this year preparing. Visit Santa’s Village to see what’s been going on, and join in on the fun!
Winning Entry from Wasson High School
NORAD teamed up with a local school district to bring more holiday cheer.Learn more.

Cenk Uyger interviews Julian Assange 15

15Minutes --DylanRatiganShow-MSNBC 12-22-10.flv




resculptit | December 22, 2010 | 
The newest interview in the U.S. of Julian Assange on the Wikileaks Thing. Discussion about the 1917 Espionage Act and our political leaders including V.P. Biden, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee. Assange making his case in a short 15+ minute interview with Cenk Uyger on MSNBC's "The Dylan Ratigan Show" Dec. 21, 2010.

ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES - OAS

Joint Statement

UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protectionthe Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression
Inter-American Commission on Human RightsSpecial Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression
Joint Statement On Wikileaks

December 21, 2010 – In light of ongoing developments related to the release of diplomatic cables by the organization Wikileaks, and the publication of information contained in those cables by mainstream news organizations, the United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression see fit to recall a number of international legal principles. The rapporteurs call upon States and other relevant actors to keep these principles in mind when responding to the aforementioned developments.
1. The right to access information held by public authorities is a fundamental human right subject to a strict regime of exceptions. The right to access to information protects the right of every person to access public information and to know what governments are doing on their behalf. It is a right that has received particular attention from the international community, given its importance to the consolidation, functioning and preservation of democratic regimes. Without the protection of this right, it is impossible for citizens to know the truth, demand accountability and fully exercise their right to political participation. National authorities should take active steps to ensure the principle of maximum transparency, address the culture of secrecy that still prevails in many countries and increase the amount of information subject to routine disclosure.
2. At the same time, the right of access to information should be subject to a narrowly tailored system of exceptions to protect overriding public and private interests such as national security and the rights and security of other persons. Secrecy laws should define national security precisely and indicate clearly the criteria which should be used in determining whether or not information can be declared secret. Exceptions to access to information on national security or other grounds should apply only where there is a risk of substantial harm to the protected interest and where that harm is greater than the overall public interest in having access to the information. In accordance with international standards, information regarding human rights violations should not be considered secret or classified.
3. Public authorities and their staff bear sole responsibility for protecting the confidentiality of legitimately classified information under their control. Other individuals, including journalists, media workers and civil society representatives, who receive and disseminate classified information because they believe it is in the public interest, should not be subject to liability unless they committed fraud or another crime to obtain the information. In addition, government "whistleblowers" releasing information on violations of the law, on wrongdoing by public bodies, on a serious threat to health, safety or the environment, or on a breach of human rights or humanitarian law should be protected against legal, administrative or employment-related sanctions if they act in good faith. Any attempt to impose subsequent liability on those who disseminate classified information should be grounded in previously established laws enforced by impartial and independent legal systems with full respect for due process guarantees, including the right to appeal.
4. Direct or indirect government interference in or pressure exerted upon any expression or information transmitted through any means of oral, written, artistic, visual or electronic communication must be prohibited by law when it is aimed at influencing content. Such illegitimate interference includes politically motivated legal cases brought against journalists and independent media, and blocking of websites and web domains on political grounds. Calls by public officials for illegitimate retributive action are not acceptable.
5. Filtering systems which are not end-user controlled – whether imposed by a government or commercial service provider – are a form of prior censorship and cannot be justified. Corporations that provide Internet services should make an effort to ensure that they respect the rights of their clients to use the Internet without arbitrary interference.
6. Self-regulatory mechanisms for journalists have played an important role in fostering greater awareness about how to report on and address difficult and controversial subjects. Special journalistic responsibility is called for when reporting information from confidential sources that may affect valuable interests such as fundamental rights or the security of other persons. Ethical codes for journalists should therefore provide for an evaluation of the public interest in obtaining such information. Such codes can also provide useful guidance for new forms of communication and for new media organizations, which should likewise voluntarily adopt ethical best practices to ensure that the information made available is accurate, fairly presented and does not cause substantial harm to legally protected interests such as human rights.

Catalina Botero MarinoInter-American Commission on Human Rights Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression

Frank LaRueUN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression

Frost over the World - Julian Assange



Julian Assange, the co-founder of the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks - which is currently releasing over 250,000 confidential American diplomatic cables - is in the UK fighting extradition to Sweden where he is wanted on charges for sexual assault.
He joins Sir David to talk about a host of issues, from his personal situation to the role of WikiLeaks as a bastion of transparency, championing the right to reveal government secrets, when it is in the publics' interest.
When he co-founded WikiLeaks he saw that he could encourage, through successful examples, people to step forward to reveal abuses by governments - to produce more justice. Subscribing to the motto that 'courage is contagious', Assange claims not to be an anarchist, rather his modus operandi is to promote responsible governance.
Now his lawyers are concerned that he will end up in an American jail, either directly through extradition from the UK, or through extradition from Sweden.
Assange heavily implies that receiving a fair trial in Sweden is doubtful. Why was the most senior prosecutor in Sweden removed (and replaced) after he said there was "no evidence or even suspicion" of rape? Why do Swedish authorities refuse to provide British officials with any evidence of crimes Assange allegedly commited - including witholding the statements of the victims?
He is hesitant to blame his two accusers for their allegations against him, suggesting they could be innocently caught up in a greater political scheme.
This special episode of Frost over the World can be seen from Tuesday, December 21, at the following times GMT: Tuesday: 2330; Wednesday: 0830, 1430, Thursday: 1930.

Happy Holidays

Hot Comments
Christmas Graphics - Comments

I would like to wish everybody a Merry Christmas and Blessed New Year.   I will be off until January 1, 2011.
Where did this year go.
I am grateful for family and friends
I am grateful that We live in a society that is Democratic and free
I am grateful for our President and our Congress, even when they are fighting.
I am grateful for a home over my head, food to eat, clothes to wear.
I am grateful that my health is pretty good, and that I love to blog.
God bless and see you in the New Year
I will be posting my Resolutions on the 30th of December..........

Hot Comments
Christmas Graphics - Comments

Hot Comments
Christmas Graphics - Comments

Senate OKs START deal

The White House scores another major lame-duck victory. | CNN screengrab
By: Scott Wong and Shira Toeplitz
December 22, 2010 03:16 PM EST
The Senate voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to ratify the START arms-control agreement, delivering a final victory to the White House at the finish line of the lame-duck session.

Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) overcame fierce opposition from the Senate’s top two Republicans, rounding up the necessary two-thirds support for the U.S.-Russia nuclear-arms pact. The final vote was 71-26, with 13 Republicans bucking their party and backing the treaty. Three senators didn’t vote.

Bipartisan ratification of the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty marked the last in a string of major victories for Obama and congressional Democrats in a post-election session that most observers expected to be bogged down by partisan gridlock.

Capitol Hill observers said the $850 billion tax compromise Obama brokered with Republicans earlier this month cleared the way for other items to advance.

“This is an incredibly productive lame duck session,” said Jim Kessler, vice president of policy think tank Third Way and a former aide to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). “The tax deal changed the tone in Washington. Once the tax deal got done, it opened the flood gates and allowed for other things to occur. [It] allowed legislators to exhale.”

The Senate voted on START the same day Obama signed legislation that begins a process to repeal the Pentagon’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” ban on openly gay service members and hours after it passed a stripped-down defense authorization bill. On Tuesday, the 111th Congress sent the president a sweeping overhaul of the nation’s food-regulatory system.

Congress was expected to adjourn for the holidays later Wednesday after tackling a bill that would provide health care benefits for ground zero workers.

“This duck was not lame. It was healthy, it was walking, it was actually running at different times,” Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) told POLITICO after attending the signing ceremony of the “don’t ask” repeal bill, of which he was a leading sponsor.

But Obama was forced to compromise on a signature economic issue, caving to Republicans’ insistence that Bush-era tax cuts be temporarily extended for all Americans in exchange for an extension of benefits for the unemployed. Democrats had wanted tax cuts to end for upper income brackets.

And the GOP scored victories by shooting down an immigration bill known as the DREAM Act and forcing Democrats to dump a $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill in exchange for a three-month spending resolution to avoid a government shutdown.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey out Wednesday revealed that 56 percent of Americans approve of the way Obama handled the issues that Congress took up during the lame duck. Only 41 percent said they disapprove.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Wednesday the chance to reach bipartisan agreements on landmark legislation is what "animated" Obama to run for president and guided his actions in the lame-duck session.

"What they show the president is that when people get together and understand and believe what is in the best interest of the American people — certainty in tax rates, repeal of policies that people believe are unjust, or something that protects our national security — that we have far more in common than we do in opposition," Gibbs said, "and that working together we can get things done."

Even though Republicans helped push START ratification over the top, the bipartisanship was short-lived. Democrats blasted GOP leaders, accusing them of obstructing much of the lame-duck agenda.

“Any time Congress is able to boost middle-class families and protect our national security like we did this session, we Democrats call it a success. ...” said Reid spokesman Rodell Mollineau. "Republicans are previewing an arrogant, reckless agenda for 2011 that is more focused on playing political games than common-sense problem-solving.”

Privately, Republicans pointed to a Gallup Poll this month showing that public approval of the Democratic-controlled Congress had sunk to a historic low of just 13 percent. But publicly, Republicans would not say whether the lame duck session was successful.

“It was wonderful that we kept taxes down for all people in this country and we really showed how serious we are about this kind of thing," John Barrasso of Wyoming, vice chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, told POLITICO. “It was certainly unusual based on the elections in November,” Barrasso said, adding that “I’m not sure this is what the Founding Fathers intended.”

The START agreement, signed earlier this year by Obama and Russian President Dimitri Medvedev, was seen as the White House’s last political priority of the lame duck. Proponents argued the agreement would improve relations with Russia and curb the spread of nuclear weapons, because it requires the nations to resume on-site inspections and cut their nuclear stockpiles in the next seven years.

But the top two Senate Republicans — Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Minority Whip Jon Kyl of Arizona — argued the treaty could make the U.S. less secure because of weak verification procedures and undermine U.S. missile defense.

Republicans offered a series of amendments to the treaty over the course of the nearly week-long debate, but Democrats rejected all of the proposed changes. If any of those amendments to the treaty or preamble passed, the Obama administration would have had to re-open negotiations with Russia.

Moments before the vote, Kyl called the Senate a "rubber stamp" for the president and dismissed the treaty as a Cold War relic.

"This may be the last arms-control agreement for a while and maybe we can get back to focusing on the real issues, issues of proliferation, or terrorism, dealing with threats from countries like North Korea and Iran," Kyl said on the Senate floor.

"It is nice to have another Cold War-era type of [deal] with Russia, but I suggest we move away from the distraction of agreements like this."

Their opposition, however, failed to derail growing GOP support for the treaty, which received strong endorsements from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The pivotal turning point came Tuesday, when the No. 3 Republican, Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander, broke ranks and announced he would back the agreement. Within a matter of hours, 11 Republicans had joined Democrats in a 67-28 procedural vote to end debate and move toward final passage, all but ensuring the treaty would reach the two-thirds threshold needed for ratification.

In Wednesday’s ratification vote, 13 Republicans supported the treaty: Alexander, Bob Bennett of Utah, Mike Johanns of Nebraska, Dick Lugar of Indiana, Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Bob Corker of Tennessee, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, George Voinovich of Ohio, and Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both of Maine.

Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.), who shepherded the treaty through the Senate, struck an optimistic tone Wednesday that the treaty would be a solid step towards a safer nuclear world.

"We can build on this treaty in a way that we share in the future strategies, analyses, and perhaps even technologies in the long run that will make all of us safer and ultimately provide all of us with the ability to deal with the realities of a nuclear world," said Kerry. "Our goal is to make us safer, and we believe this helps us do that."
© 2010 Capitol News Company, LLC

New GOP rules will make it tougher for House to raise ceiling on federal debt

By Molly K. Hooper 12/22/10 10:16 AM ET
House Republicans set to release their recommended rules changes Wednesday will change the names of several committees and repeal a rule making it more difficult to raise the debt ceiling.
They will also require that all bills be posted online three days before a vote.

Republicans will keep the outside Office of Congressional Ethics, as well as the current rule that former House members may not use the House gym.
Republicans are touting the new rules as increasing openness, deliberation and efficiency in the House.
“These reforms represent Republicans' first step in keeping the promises we outlined in the Pledge to America to change the way Washington works and address the people’s priorities: creating jobs and cutting spending,” said Speaker-designate John Boehner (R-Ohio).
The draft rules would repeal the “Gephardt Rule” that allows the House to raise the debt limit automatically when a conference report on the budget is approved. If the rule is repealed, a separate vote on raising the debt ceiling must be held.
Three committee names will change: The Committee on Education and Labor will again be referred to as the Committee on Education and the Workforce, the Committee on Standards and Official Conduct will become the Committee on Ethics, and the Committee on Science and Technology will referred to as the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
Republicans are keeping in place the rule that prevents former members who are now lobbyists from using the House gym.
“The package also carries forth a rule that prohibits former members of Congress who are now registered lobbyists from using the member exercise facilities (the gym),” a leadership aide said.
The outside ethics office has been criticized by many Republicans, but it will also be kept.
“The House rules package preserves the Office of Congressional Ethics with no changes made to its structure,” the leadership aide said.
The new rules also allow for a reading of the Constitution on the House floor by the Speaker on Jan. 6.
Republicans on the transition team were largely responsible for writing the recommended changes. The draft set of House rules for the 112th Congress will be available later Wednesday in electronic form. That’s a change from the past, when rules packages have been released the day of their approval.
Democrats will have the opportunity to offer an alternative package of House rules changes on Jan. 5, the day the House convenes for the 112th Congress.
House Republicans will meet Jan. 4 to approve the rules package within their conference.

'Trusted traveler' gets support





The U.S. Travel Association, an advocacy group for the travel industry, is calling for the federal government to adopt an alternative approach to the current aviation security regime — one that would include better technology and the use of “trusted traveler” pre-screening programs.

“Our current system cannot be the best that the United States can create,” association President Roger Dow said, adding later, “The traveling public certainly deserves a smarter, more efficient and more secure system.”

To that end, the association has for months been sponsoring a panel with representatives from the legislative, security and travel fields — including former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, former House Homeland Security Committee ranking member Jim Turner, D-Texas (1997-2005), former American Airlines president Bob Crandall, former DHS Deputy Assistant Secretary for Screening Kathleen Kraninger and former Transportation Security Administration Deputy Secretary Robert Jamison — to devise an alternative proposal, which it plans to put out at the end of January.

But Dow said the panel will also need data showing that a problem exists when it makes its recommendations for Congress.

Such data was released in the form of a survey Tuesday. The association had the consulting firm Consensus Research Group survey a sample of 1,000 business and leisure air travelers between Nov. 25 and Dec. 10 on the state of air travel.

The results were unsurprising — 64 percent of respondents said they would fly more if security were less intrusive and time-consuming but just as effective, and 74 percent supported recruiting more and better-trained security officers at airports.

Bob Perkins, managing partner at Consensus Research, said the survey showed that respondents were unhappy with security procedures including taking off belts and shoes, as well as the time it takes to get onto planes. Those frustrations can have a real effect on travel, he said.

“Air security is becoming an infrastructure issue,” he said. “No one would expect you to drive from Baltimore to New York on gravel roads, yet we fail to take into account the role air security has in inhibiting travel.”

The survey’s respondents also support measures such as special security lanes for frequent travelers, families and those who need boarding assistance, Perkins said.

Dow said the association’s panel is still pulling together its recommendations, but they are likely center on three areas that have already received a good deal of focus from TSA and related agencies: training in personal observation for security officers, computer analysis and trusted traveler programs.

To some extent, the agency continues to explore all of those options, with mixed results, but Dow said the panel would want them re-examined in “a better, holistic way.” The trusted-traveler option, especially, would be a step toward moving some aspects of security away from any possible airport bottleneck, he said.

“Just as you check into a hotel, if you’re in their frequent traveler program they have a lot more information on you,” he said.

Perkins said such a program would help narrow down the group of passengers for whom in-depth security checks are required.

“If we can get to a smaller pool of passengers whose travel habits and background are questionable, that gives us a much better chance,” he said.

-- Rob Margetta, CQ Staff

House GOP to Require Legislation Meet Constitutional Standard



By Chad Pergram


FILE: House Minority Leader John Boehner holds a copy of the GOP agenda, "A Pledge to America," in Sterling, Va., on Sept. 23.
AP
FILE: House Minority Leader John Boehner holds a copy of the GOP agenda, "A Pledge to America," in Sterling, Va., on Sept. 23.



House Republicans will introduce a draft set of House rules for the 112th Congress on Wednesday which seeks to offer a "sea change" in the way the House operates -- with greater openness, deliberation, efficiency and a closer adherence to the U.S. Constitution.
The rules package being touted as expansive in its reach, focused in its purpose and an attempt to honor the promises made in the Pledge to America to reform Congress, including reducing operating costs of the House itself. 
"These reforms represent Republicans' first step in keeping the promises we outlined in the Pledge to America to change the way Washington works and address the people's priorities: creating jobs and cutting spending," said House Speaker-designate John Boehner of Ohio.
The reforms largely reflect the work of the GOP transition team led by Chairman Greg Walden of Oregon and House Rules working group chairman, Rep. Rob Bishop of Utah. Supporters claim it sets a new standard for transparency and accountability and makes budget process reforms that will help end the culture of spending in Washington. 
It also sets up a high bar that could send Republicans soaring or fumbling depending on their adherence to the package's principles.
As promised in the pledge, members will not be able to introduce a bill or joint resolution without "a statement citing as specifically as practicable the power or powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact" it. The point aims to require members to refocus every bill on the Constitution they take an oath to support and defend.
Once distributed to lawmakers, the package will be posted online for all Americans to view. On Jan. 4, House Republicans will hold an organizational conference meeting where amendments to the package can be offered. The new Democratic minority will have an opportunity to offer an alternative rules package.
The package will have to be adopted on Jan. 5, the first day of the new Congress. In it, it orders for the entire Constitution to be read aloud in the House on Jan. 6.
As for other reforms to the budget process, in place of the pay-as-you-go rules established by Democrats to ensure new spending is offset with funds raised, Republicans want to insert cut-as-you-go rules. That would mean that all mandatory spending should be offset with cuts in spending of equal or greater amount elsewhere. Tax increases cannot be used to pay for new mandatory spending
The rules also will eliminate an existing provision that provides for an automatic increase in the debt limit upon the adoption of a new budget resolution.
While current statutory pay-go rules require budget windows to determine how much a bill will cost in the first, fifth and 10th year, the new budget projections must be made for four additional 10-year budget windows. If mandatory spending increases the deficit by $5 billion or more in any of those 10-year windows, the bill can be challenged as violating House rules.
Among the other package elements:
-- A six-year term limit on committee chairmen, one of the central congressional reforms of the 1994 Contract with America that was eliminated under Democratic control of the House, will return.

-- While the first 10 bill numbers have traditionally been reserved for the majority party, as a courtesy the new rules reserve bill numbers 11 through 20 for the minority party.

-- Delegates and resident commissioners -- those not representing states -- will not be able to vote in the full committee.
-- For the first time under the House rules, "electronic format" will be the standard by which bills are made available. No bill will be voted upon without being available online for at least three calendar days -- the intent is to ensure members, media and the American people have an opportunity to read the bill before any vote.
-- In hopes of increasing transparency and openness, Boehner has vowed to restore bill-writing power to the committees. That would require posting online the committee's rules, any conflicts of interest for witnesses at hearings, three-days notice of coming votes, text of legislation beforehand, amendments made, attendance records and votes made by committee members.

-- Committees will be required to file activity reports twice annually, up from the current one report per Congress. The goal is to summarize legislative and oversight activities, actions taken and recommendations made on oversight plans.
-- The newly named Office of Congressional Ethics will have no other changes and Republicans will keep the ethics rules of the current Congress. Former members of Congress who are now registered lobbyists will be banned from using the member gym.


The Michael Moore interview







  -  


All day today, people demanded that Rachel Maddow address the sexual assault charges against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, and that her guest Michael Moore explain why he'dhelped post bail for Assange.
Maddow opened by saying that by their very nature, leaks tend to make us believe them. We'll believe a leak almost because it was leaked, she said, because someone brought information to light that was supposed to be kept secret. And then she turned to the Assange question:
The timing could not be more suspicious. The man accused says he's being pursued for political reasons. But even if you're suspicious about the timing, there are two women who went to the police with what are essentially date-rape charges against this guy.
This doesn't fit on a bumper sticker.
Can your suspicion about the forces arrayed against Julian Assange and Wikileaks -- your suspicion about the timing and pursuit of these charges -- coexist with respect for the women making these accusations against him and with a commitment to take rape allegations seriously, even when the person accused is someone that for other reasons you like?
As you'll see from this rushed clip -- transcript's coming -- Moore said he's concerned that there's a "concerted attempt" to stop Wikileaks and others who are trying to tell the truth about what he calls America's six wars. As for the charges against Assange, Moore noted that he helped start a rape-crisis center in his hometown of Flint, Michigan, and said the charges against Assange should be fully examined.
"Every woman who claims to have been sexually assaulted or raped has to be, must be, taken seriously. Those charges have to be investigated to the fullest extent possible," Moore said. "For too long, and too many women have been abused in our society , because they were not listened to, and they just got shoved aside. . . .So I think these two alleged victims have to be taken seriously and Mr. Assange has to answer the questions."
Second half of the interview's after the jump.








Play him off, TRMS audience

  -  

The online reaction to last night's show was nothing short of volcanic, so it's understandable if you haven't already heard about this. But you may have noticed one peculiar eruption toward the end of the show that had something to do with singing...
Behold, Michael Moore, choral leader

Spector on his farewell to Washington, D.C.


Grading Congress' 2010 Performance


A SENATOR SCORNED....




December 21, 2010
 Quick quiz -- only one Republican senator has sided with Democrats on DADT repeal, the tax deal, New START cloture, and the DREAM Act in the lame-duck session. Who was it?
The obvious guesses would likely be Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), Susan Collins (R-Maine), or Scott Brown (R-Mass.). But the truth is a little further north.
One of Pres. Obama's biggest supporters in the Senate in the past week is not even a member of his own party: Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska).
Murkowski supported the president's position on the Senate's four biggest votes since last Wednesday.... No Senate Republican voted for all four bills other than Murkowski. And the senior senator from Alaska, who became a national figure this year when she defeated attorney Joe Miller (R) with her write-in campaign, has actually been a more reliable vote for the president than 18 members of the Senate Democratic caucus since Dec. 15.


I suspect these votes are not well received by Republican leaders, but don't forget, Murkowski not only doesn't care, she actually has an incentive to annoy them -- her party did very little to help her re-election bid in Alaska this year, and actively sought to defeat her during her successful write-in bid.
Indeed, even after the election was done and it appeared that Murkowski had won, the National Republican Senatorial Committee sent out a message to its supporters with a subject line that read, "Help Joe Miller in Alaska." The email, published over Sen. John Cornyn's (R-Texas) signature, suggested Republicans should send money to help Miller fight Murkowski in court.
noted on December 7, "Don't be too surprised if Murkowski returns to the Senate next year, and is slightly more open to Democratic outreach than she has been."
It turns out we don't even have to wait until next year -- Murkowski is already proving herself open to working with Dems on a whole range of issues.
Looking ahead, this may not matter too much in the next Congress, since Dems would need seven GOP votes to overcome Republican filibusters, and even if Murkowski joins Snowe, Collins, Brown, and Kirk in some sort of "Mod Squad," that won't be enough.
That said, it's nevertheless good to see a Republican breaking ranks on key issues as often as Murkowski is now.
Update: Just a few minutes after I published this, Murkowski announced she'll support ratification of New START, which only helps reinforce the larger point.
Second Update: It looks like John Cole saw much of this coming over a month ago. The GOP's Lieberman? Murkowski just might like the sound of that.
Steve Benen 1:10 PM

OBAMA SIGNS REPEAL OF DADT

@ & @ mtg today to talk re: repeal of #DADT



The White House Blog

The President Signs Repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell": "Out of Many, We Are One"

With his signature today, the President put in motion the end of a policy that has hurt our military as a whole, that has forced thousands of those who serve to do so under a cloud of anxiety and isolation, and that has stood as a symbol of the barriers to unity and equality in our country.  As the President put it, "For we are not a nation that says, 'don't ask, don’t tell.' We are a nation that says, 'Out of many, we are one.'"
A Man in the Audience Tears Up At Signing of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" Repeal
People in the audience listen as President Barack Obama speaks before signing the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 during a ceremony at the Interior Department in Washington, D.C. December 22, 2010. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff – one of many to receive a standing ovation during the signing ceremony – has made the case consistently on the effect this policy has had on thousands of our troops, and the President quoted him saying “Our people sacrifice a lot for their country, including their lives. None of them should have to sacrifice their integrity as well.”  The President added:
I want to express my gratitude to the men and women in this room who have worn the uniform of the United States Armed Services.  (Applause.)  I want to thank all the patriots who are here today, all of them who were forced to hang up their uniforms as a result of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” -- but who never stopped fighting for this country, and who rallied and who marched and fought for change.  I want to thank everyone here who stood with them in that fight. 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen at Signing of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" Repeal
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen is acknowledged before President Barack Obama signs the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 during a ceremony at the Interior Department in Washington, D.C. December 22, 2010. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
The entire event was profound, and the President's remarks are well worth reading in full, but perhaps the most moving part of the President’s remarks was a story he opened with:
You know, I am just overwhelmed.  This is a very good day.  (Applause.)  And I want to thank all of you, especially the people on this stage, but each and every one of you who have been working so hard on this, members of my staff who worked so hard on this.  I couldn’t be prouder.
Sixty-six years ago, in the dense, snow-covered forests of Western Europe, Allied Forces were beating back a massive assault in what would become known as the Battle of the Bulge.  And in the final days of fighting, a regiment in the 80th Division of Patton’s Third Army came under fire.  The men were traveling along a narrow trail.  They were exposed and they were vulnerable.  Hundreds of soldiers were cut down by the enemy. 
And during the firefight, a private named Lloyd Corwin tumbled 40 feet down the deep side of a ravine.  And dazed and trapped, he was as good as dead.  But one soldier, a friend, turned back.  And with shells landing around him, amid smoke and chaos and the screams of wounded men, this soldier, this friend, scaled down the icy slope, risking his own life to bring Private Corwin to safer ground. 
For the rest of his years, Lloyd credited this soldier, this friend, named Andy Lee, with saving his life, knowing he would never have made it out alone.  It was a full four decades after the war, when the two friends reunited in their golden years, that Lloyd learned that the man who saved his life, his friend Andy, was gay.  He had no idea.  And he didn’t much care.  Lloyd knew what mattered.  He knew what had kept him alive; what made it possible for him to come home and start a family and live the rest of his life.  It was his friend. 
And Lloyd’s son is with us today.  And he knew that valor and sacrifice are no more limited by sexual orientation than they are by race or by gender or by religion or by creed; that what made it possible for him to survive the battlefields of Europe is the reason that we are here today.   (Applause.)  That's the reason we are here today.  (Applause.)
The President stressed for the sake of those in uniform now that he, the Defense Secretary and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs still need to certify that the military has made any needed preparations for the transition before repeal goes into effect, but also gave this assurance: “I have spoken to every one of the service chiefs and they are all committed to implementing this change swiftly and efficiently.  We are not going to be dragging our feet to get this done.”  He went on to express complete confidence that those who serve in our military will easily adapt, quoting one service member who contributed to the Pentagon’s exhaustive study:
As one special operations warfighter said during the Pentagon’s review -- this was one of my favorites -- it echoes the experience of Lloyd Corwin decades earlier:  “We have a gay guy in the unit.  He’s big, he’s mean, he kills lots of bad guys.”  (Laughter.)  “No one cared that he was gay.”  (Laughter.) And I think that sums up perfectly the situation.  (Applause.)  
The President and Vice President Shake Hands with the Audience After Signing Repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell"
President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden shake hands with people in the audience after signing the Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 at the Department of the Interior in Washington, D.C. December 22, 2010. (Official White House Photo by Samantha Appleton)