The Magnificent, Marvelous, Mindreading, Mellifluous (not to mention Mentally Engaging and Markedly Stupendous) MissM gives you the link for the David Letterman-Bill O'Reilly Second Round Showdown (ick poo - sometimes the mere mention of his name makes me want to barf).
My previous (as in yesterday) post about this can be found here.
[Ed. Update: It would help if I included the link to the Crooks and Liars video. Sowwy.]
The Magnificent, Marvelous, Mindreading, Mellifluous (not to mention Mentally Engaging and Markedly Stupendous) MissM gives you the link for the David Letterman-Bill O'Reilly Second Round Showdown (ick poo - sometimes the mere mention of his name makes me want to barf).
My previous (as in yesterday) post about this can be found here.
McCain said today the U.S. really needs to send at least 20,000 more troops into Iraq.
BTW, whoever kindly provides his meds: McCain insists on downing his pills with a Bush Kool-Aid chaser.
You get a really bad idea for a Reality TV show. Although, to be honest, all reality TV is pretty damned stupid.
Here:
Big Brother meets Survival on Iraqi TV
Media: Shias, Sunnis, Kurds and Christians under one roof for reality show.
[Ed. Update: That's Iran, not Iraq.]
Seeing how utterly successful the U.S. Republican party has been referring to every non-GOP person as a Nazi, Israeli Prime Minister Olmert has jumped in to insist Iraq is just like Nazi Germany.
Uh... given Israel's actions in the last 40 years and much worse recently, I think they should be very careful about leveling charges of genocide, race bias, the dangers of a radical theocracy at work, etc.
Or... er... they would if they were allowed to speak with a man which they are not thanks to the "increased" freedom the Bushies delivered to Afghanistan - and Iraq - on the business end of depleted uranium and clusterfuck bombs.
From the wires, "Women Under Attack in Afghanistan and Iraq":
Women are facing increasing violence in Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia, especially when they speak out publicly to defend women's rights, a senior U.N. official told the
U.N. Security Council.
Noeleen Heyzer, executive director of the U.N. Development Fund for Women, called on for fresh efforts to ensure the safety of women in countries emerging from conflicts, to provide them with jobs, and ensure that they receive justice, including compensation for rape.
"What UNIFEM is seeing on the ground — in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia — is that public space for women in these situations is shrinking," Heyzer said Thursday. "Women are becoming assassination targets when they dare defend women's rights in public decision-making."Heyzer spoke at a daylong open council meeting on implementation of a 2000 resolution that called for women to be included in decision-making positions at every level of striking and building on peace deals. It also called for the prosecution of crimes against women and increased protection of women and girls during war.
Undersecretary-General for Peacekeeping Jean-Marie Guehenno said that, in the past year, Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf became the first woman head of state in Africa, Liberia adopted an anti-rape law, women in Sierra Leone pushed for laws on human trafficking, inheritance and property rights and women in East Timor submitted a draft domestic violence bill to parliament.
I think it was better the previous time, but I appreciate that Letterman didn't even pretend to give him any due.
Well, not to China. Just go to your Web browser. Reader CK reminded me of a Chinese news site I've visited before called Xinhua (China View) - and don't sweat it, they do English - which had a lot of news NOT in our headlines today. I've done a round-up below but feel free to visit yourself.
The U.S and Torture:
UN expert: New U.S. terror law violates international treaties
The new anti-terrorism law approved by the United States earlier this month contains provisions that violate international treaties and contradict the principles of fair trial, a key UN human rights expert said Friday.
North Korea Cites U.S. and South Korea:
DPRK accuses U.S., S Korea of adopting provocative action
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea on Friday accused the United States and South Korea of preparing for a nuclear war against it.The DPRK conducted its first nuclear test on Oct. 9, sparking a harsh reaction from the int'l community.[DPRK conducts nuclear test] FULL STORY
Israel Violates Lebanese Air Space
Lebanon accuses Israel of violating airspace[Special Report]
The Lebanese Army on Friday accused Israeli warplanes of hovering over southern Lebanese areas and violating the country's airspace.
And then there's this:
Global warming + hurricane = goodbye Coney Island
... perhaps someone could inform George "macaca" Allen that the Vice President's old bag, Lynne Cheney, wrote a much steamier - and far less interesting - book about lesbian lust in 1981. And, as Keith Olbermann pointed out tonight, there was also Scooter Libby's fictional fascination with young prostitutes locked up in ape cages for "training". Jim Webb's stuff, written a few decades ago, I'm told is quite tame.
Statistically speaking, I suspect some of the worst perverts, molesters, and creeps may all be card-carrying Republicans (not that there aren't very normal, compassionate GOP members). Puritans who want to shake their fingers and punish others are often the worst offenders in any area.
[Ed. note: You also want to read Glenn's coverage of The Dick Cheney interview where he seems gleeful about U.S. torture and waterboarding specifically.]
Constitutional legal expert Glenn Greenwald is always an informative read and tonight is no exception.
First he tackles the latest so-called liberal media bias (cackle!) with NBC's decision not to air something perhaps "unflattering" against President Bush related to the Dixie Chicks ("Shut Up and Sing"). Then there's the Bushies demanding military escalation in Iraq (oh, that'll be good), followed by "rank ignorance" masquerading as expertise.
Dixie Chicks:
The new documentary, Shut Up & Sing, chronicles the hostile and sometimes threatening conduct directed towards The Dixie Chicks after one of the group's members criticized the Commander-in-Chief, President George W. Bush, during a 2003 concert. The documentary is being distributed by Harvey Weinstein's film company, and a preview for the film can be seen here.
According to Matt Drudge (a phrase that does not roll out of one's mouth easily), both NBC and the CW Television Network (the joint venture of CBS and Warner Brothers that combines the WB and UPN Networks) are refusing to air ads promoting Shut Up & Sing on the ground that the ads are "disparaging" to our President...
The very idea that it is in the "public interest" to prohibit ads that criticize the Leader is ludicrous on its face. The President is constantly given free airtime to argue his views and propagandize on virtually every issue, and the networks endlessly offer forums for his followers and surrogates to defend him. And the networks' argument is particularly absurd now, given that networks are awash with cash from offensive, obnoxious, and repugnant political ads of every kind.
What possible justification is there for a network to prohibit the promotion of films which are critical of the nation's political leaders? Worse, the networks' recent history of ostensible avoidance of "controversial" political material seems extremely selective and one-sided. "Controversial" in this context seems actually to mean "likely to trigger displeasure among the Leader and his supporters."
Bushies Demand More War (as in more aggressive) in Iraq:
Bush followers have finally been forced to accept as fact that the Iraq War has become widely unpopular among Americans. But a consensus among them has emerged that the war's unpopularity is not a repudiation of the war itself, but instead, is reflective of a belief that the war must be prosecuted more aggressively, with more resources, and with less restraint and caution. In their view, the problem isn't that Americans have realized that the war isn't worth the costs or is based on false pretenses, but instead, it's that Americans believe that victory is so urgent in Iraq that they're angry that we're not doing enough to achieve it.
Yesterday, the President -- as he has been doing regularly over the past couple months -- met with eight Bush followers who masquerade as "journalists," including Tony Blankley of the Washington Times, Charles Krauthammer, Mark Steyn and Michael Barone. As Byron York (who was also there) reported, one of the principal themes was that Americans are dissatisfied with the war in Iraq because we aren't going all out to win (emphasis added):The frustration in the room stemmed not so much from internal divisions and paralysis in the Iraqi government, or lagging indicators like oil and energy production. Rather, it came from the fact that American forces simply do not seem to be winning the war — on anyone’s terms — and that most Americans are disinclined to leave the troops in Iraq without some clear movement toward victory.
“The American people were solidly behind this when you went in and you toppled the Taliban, when you go in and you topple Saddam,” columnist Mark Steyn said to the president. “But when it just seems to be a kind of thankless, semi-colonial, policing, defensive operation, with no end — I mean, where is the offense in this?”
Rank ignorance posing as expertise
It should surprise nobody that armies of "conservatives" have become overnight experts in New Jersey Constitutional law and have pronounced the 66-page decision (.pdf) from the New Jersey Supreme Court to be a tyrannical embodiment of judicial activism. But in issuing these condemnations, none of them mentions a single provision of the New Jersey State Constitution or any precedent applying it that supports their righteous conviction that the decision was legally erroneous; they just know intuitively, deep in their soul, that it is.
The good folks at Talking Points Memo have supplied just such a scorecard to help you keep track of all those Republican/GOP scandals.
Thanks to Doug at All Things Democrat for the pointer.
You may not recognize the name, but anyone who watched slightly more intelligent TV programs no doubt saw him in countless shows, including "Owen Marshall, Attorney at Law", in TV movies and mini-series, as well as in the Michael Crichton movie, "Andromeda Strain." He was a true actor rather than a "TV star".
Funny, I was just thinking about Hill in the last few days and wondered what became of him since it had been so long since I last saw him appear. The reason, besides age (he was 84), was Alzheimer's, a battle he waged for about 16 years.
Also from AP/WaPo on Dick Cheney's favorite millionaire-made-him Halliburton in Iraq, which follows up this previous post on Kellogg, Brown & Root:
Administrative overhead accounted for more than half the costs that a Halliburton Co. subsidiary passed on to the government under a key contract to restore Iraq's oil industry, a figure that critics said was unusually high.
A report released yesterday by the inspector general's office overseeing Iraq spending found that at least 55 percent, or $163 million, of $296 million in total costs rung up by Halliburton unit KBR went to expenses such as back-office support, transportation and security. That percentage was significantly higher than it was on work by other firms in Iraq, and experts said it is far above what is typically found on a government contract.
The findings are the latest that call into question KBR's work under the deal, which required the company to rehabilitate oil facilities in southern Iraq. Under the contract's terms, KBR is reimbursed for its costs and then receives a percentage for profit on top, an arrangement that critics contend has given the firm an incentive to run up its bills.
According to internal government documents released in March, auditors found that the company had repeatedly overcharged the government by, among other things, billing for work it didn't actually do and paying suppliers more than they were owed. Meanwhile, work schedules slid and company officials balked at requests for accurate cost estimates. At one point, officials threatened to terminate the deal. Instead, KBR -- which has received more money from the Iraq war effort than any other firm -- was allowed to keep the contract and is now winding up work.
Hard to believe that a mega corporation Dick Cheney once called home - Halliburton - could possibly do anything to maximize their profits while hurting our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan directly and American taxpayers in the pocketbook! But here it is in all its infamous glory:
The Halliburton subsidiary that provides food, shelter and other logistics to U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan exploited federal regulations to hide details on its contract performance, according to a report released Friday.Uh huh.
The special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction found that Halliburton's Kellogg, Brown & Root Services routinely marked all information it gave to the government as proprietary, whether it was or not. The government promises not to disclose proprietary data so a company's most valuable information is not divulged to its competitors.
By marking all information proprietary _ including such normally releasable data as labor rates _ the company abused federal regulations, the report says.
In effect, Kellogg, Brown & Root turned the regulations "into a mechanism to prevent the government from releasing normally transparent information, thus potentially hindering competition and oversight."
Halliburton spokeswoman Cathy Mann said that since the current contract is being reviewed and may be divided among several contractors, "It is clearly appropriate to mark data as proprietary that could potentially be used for competitive purposes" as would be the case in any new contract.
She said such proprietary markings have been used on a majority of the data for at least the last decade, and the company will work with the military on matters outlined in the interim report as the final audit is completed.
The boards of both Exxon with its 10.4 B(with a b)illion 3Q profit and Chevron which just released a record $5B profit in the same third quarter wish to thank each and every one of you for helping to elect two men from the oil and energy billions as the tyrant and vice-tyral-in-chief!
And that you love gas-guzzling vehicles to boot is just icing on the energy profiteering cake!
[Ed. note: The Washington Post notes what they prefer to cite as a possible misstatement - but which is probably likely nothing like a misstatement - where Vice President Dick Cheney has endorsed waterboarding and such torture as the great American way. Nice. Really nice. Why does the rest of the world hate us? You don't have to struggle to answer that one anymore, folks.]
For George Bush - and his "brain", Karl Rove - lies come as easily as breathing, perhaps moreso.
The other day, he tried to pretend that he has never uttered the phrase, "stay the course", when news outlets like Keith Olbermann's Countdown on MSNBC could easily cite 29 or more public speeches in which he cited this.
Today, I heard Bush say, "The U.S. does not torture. And we won't."
Really?
Tell that to the never-charged detainees after 9/11 who mysteriously died in custody.
Tell that to the Canadian man Bush had shipped to Syria to waterboard and otherwise torture.
Tell that to the untold number of reports out of Guantanamo Bay (Gitmo) that tell us torture is used each and every day.
Tell that to the Abu Ghraib prisoners (those still alive that is) featured in "recreational" photos by U.S. troops.
Tell that to Jose Padilla and the so-called 20th hijacker (a title the Bushies put on at least ten different people with no evidence they were).
And I could go on for at least an hour with just those cases I have read or heard about, where there is evidence from more than one source.
I see Chuck at BushMerika2 has some of the same doubts about how Karl Rove works his black magic on polls and voting machines around election time that I do.
The Magnificent MissM brings us a two-fer:
Sadly, I think it's probably true related to the story I posted about yesterday.
Never underestimate the power of hate and fear along with a misguided sense of justice to make idiots jump forward on issues like homosexuality, same sex marriage, and other "hair trigger", highly flammable topics.
When I turned on TV to catch some news this morning, I was apparently mistaken in believing that MSNBC or CNN would "tell" me something.
Instead, I got treated to what seemed like a major news story but sure didn't sound like one: the great terror Atlanta was facing now that John Mark Karr - the nutcase who got himself arrested - with his own foolishness - on the JonBenet Ramsey murder case only to be only that, a nutcase - was about to move back to Atlanta to live with the family.
Now, granted, Karr is a real fruit loop. But what always amazes me in these stories where "communities are gripped with fear about a child molester" overlooks the most basic truth and statistic: children are at the greatest risk for abuse - sexual, physical, psychological - from the people they know.
The media loves these stories and America responds, but kids still are at the greatest risk from those they know, those part of their family, and not strangers.
Our courteous Karlo at Swerve Left:
American politicos could take a few lessons from their Japanese counterparts. The new Japanese prime minister recently lowered his own salary by 30 per cent, and reduced the salaries of all cabinet members by 10 per cent.
While we're at it, why don't we pass a law forbidding all members of lawmakers families from working as lobbyists, and even more importantly, create another law forbidding all former government personnel from working for firms that subcontract for the U.S. government. (The law could simply state that the government is forbidden from accepting contracts from firms that employ its former workers.) This would help limit the culture of corruption--those people who quit their jobs as colonels or cabinet members to suddenly find lucrative employment as high-paid "consultants" (just why a retired cabinet member with no background in given industry is such a treasure trove of information and contacts I'll leave you to guess.)
TheBHC at AnythingThey Say points us to a fascinating - if not altogether hopeful or wonderful - outlook on election day:
Michael Collins at Scoop has a fascinating post, PROTECTING THE DEMOCRATIC VOTE, which everyone should check out. Detailing the results of Monte Carlo simulations of polling data to make election predictions, Collins and Truthisall have produced a number of interesting results that indicate strong majorities for Democrats should be the result of the November elections. Of course, we know that won't be the case but it has little to do with the accuracy of the polls or these simulations...
Webb is not going to turf out racist idiot Allen, which says far too much -- none of it good -- about Allen's voting soul-mates in Virginia. And, sadly, Connecticut looks to be sporting about as clueless and servile a population of incumbency whores as any in the nation. I also serioulsy doubt that Ford is going to beat Corker at this point, not that Democrats would or should care about that clown getting into the Senate, what with his fevered pitches against pressing issues like gay marriage.
Nonetheless, there are 6 senate seats that the simulation predicts are in the bag for Democrats, which would give them the majority in that house. What more is there to say about this other than ... we'll see.
And in case you might think that this election will be all about Diebold and ES&S machines, Greg Palast has already documented the traditional methods of voter fraud and suppression that have been used quite effectively in the last few elections. In 2004, more than 3 million ballots went uncounted:
When you stop to realize that the world's coral reefs act very much like the planet's lungs and immune system, you may understand why the loss of more than half of them in just 25 years is a huge issue. As Reason and Brimstone asks, What will you do about it?
From Consortium News:
George W. Bush says the U.S. government's highest duty is to protect the safety of Americans. But many traditional conservatives -- and other Americans -- disagree, saying the top priority must be defense of the Constitution and individual liberties. In this guest essay, William Frey explains why he and other conservatives believe the modern GOP has lost its way
The Nation, as always, has some very thought-provoking as well as informative pieces available online, including the following:
The Torture Election
At issue in the coming election, Jonathan Schell writes, is nothing less than the future of our constitutional government, which the President and his party have put in serious jeopardy.
Oversight? Nah, Don't Need It
Katrina vanden Heuvel With the stroke of a pen, the President has made oversight of Iraq reconstruction projects significantly weaker.
Stem Cell Politics
John Nichols Paul Wellstone predicted the people would be heard on the issue of stem-cell research. It could happen this fall.
How Big Will the Anti-GOP Wave Be?
David Corn Independent analyst Charlie Cook says the Rs can expect to lose the House, maybe the Senate--unless there's a pre-election surprise.
The South Changes Course
Katrina vanden Heuvel New survey shows that Southerners doubt US policy in Iraq as much as citizens in other regions, and in some cases more so.
Whitewater to Blackwater
Jeremy Scahill and Garrett Ordower report Blackwater USA has a new attorney to defend it against wrongful death lawsuits: Kenneth Starr.
Driving Planned Parenthood
Jennifer Baumgardner Cecile Richards, Planned Parenthood's new president, leads an organization searching for new national strategies, as a crucial vote in South Dakota tests its grassroots clout.
I think the question is far less why, but how as in "What the fuck is Bush thinking?", if he thinks at all. From Froomkin's blog today on Wednesday's Bush press conference (read the full transcript here since it's enlightening from a mental health perspective; reality-defying in-fucking-deedy):
One of the more reality-defying aspects of President Bush's position on the war in Iraq is his insistence that we're winning.Wow, Abizaid's mother must be real proud that the president considers the general a "real" thinker.
That was a central theme at yesterday's press conference. Here's the transcript .
"Absolutely, we're winning," Bush said. "As a matter of fact, my view is the only way we lose in Iraq is if we leave before the job is done."
With the body counts soaring, the country descending deeper into civil war and the central government consistently unable to assert itself, how can he call this winning?
The answer: It's becoming increasingly clear that Bush sees the war in Iraq in very simple terms. As he himself said, he believes that the only way to lose is to leave. Therefore anything else is winning -- anything else at all.
Even if no progress is being made -- even if things are getting worse, rather than better -- simply staying is winning.
So we're winning.
Bush expanded on this principle in a fascinating, one-hour Oval Office interview yesterday afternoon with a half-dozen conservative journalists.
One of the attendees was Michael Barone of U.S. News, and usnews.com last night Web-published the transcript as well as the audio . The National Review, whose Byron York attended, published the transcript this morning.
Even though the session was mostly on the record, Bush seemed looser than he usually does in interviews. The result was a slew of disjointed, sometimes not particularly intelligible, but sometimes deeply telling insights into his thinking about the war. It's a heckuva read.
For example, Bush said he owes his conviction that leaving equals losing to Gen. John P. Abizaid, the Central Command chief who oversees military operations in the Middle East.
And regardless of his recent public attempts at semantic backtracking, Bush made it clear to this group of supporters that "stay the course" remains his strategy.
Here's Bush, in his opening remarks:
"Abizaid, who I think is one of the really great thinkers, John Abizaid -- I don't know if you've ever had a chance to talk to him, he's a smart guy -- he came up with this construct: If we leave, they will follow us here. That's really different from other wars we've been in. If we leave, okay, so they suffer in other parts of the world, used to be the old mantra. This one is different. This war is, if they leave, they're coming after us. As a matter of fact, they'll be more emboldened to come after us. They will be able to find more recruits to come after us.
"Abizaid clearly sees this struggle -- he sees the effects of victory in Iraq as having a major impact on other parts of the Middle East. He also sees the reciprocal of that, a defeat -- just leaving -- the only defeat is leaving, is letting things fall into chaos and letting al Qaeda have a safe haven."
As for "stay the course"? Said Bush: "This stuff about 'stay the course' -- stay the course means, we're going to win. Stay the course does not mean that we're not going to constantly change."
Part of the problem with Bush's equation is that it fails to take into account that the war in Iraq is more than just a war between the U.S. and the terrorists.
If you see Iraq as purely U.S. vs. Al Qaeda , then it can indeed be hard to see a withdrawal as anything but a terrible defeat.
Peter Bergen partly channels that view in a New York Times op-ed today. He writes: "A total withdrawal from Iraq would play into the hands of the jihadist terrorists. As Osama bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, made clear shortly after 9/11 in his book 'Knights Under the Prophet's Banner,' Al Qaeda's most important short-term strategic goal is to seize control of a state, or part of a state, somewhere in the Muslim world."
But Iraq is not U.S. vs. Al Qaeda . It's primarily a civil war now. The U.S. occupation is radicalizing Iraqis, most of whom say they want us out. And as that National Intelligence Estimate released last month states, the Iraq war has actually fueled, not slowed, the terror movement.
So would withdrawal from Iraq leave behind a failed state in which Al Qaeda could thrive? Would the terrorists follow us home?
Or would the opposite be true? Perhaps an American withdrawal is the only chance for Iraq to put itself back together. Perhaps the first step in winning the ideological war against terrorists would be abandoning such an easily demonized position, and instead modeling the principles of peace, freedom, and respect for Islamic people that we talk about so much.
Is there a middle ground between the "leaving equals losing" and "leaving equals winning"?
As it happens, Bergen proposes one in his op-ed today: "America should abandon its pretensions that it can make Iraq a functioning democracy and halt the civil war. Instead, we should focus on a minimalist definition of our interests in Iraq, which is to prevent a militant Sunni jihadist mini-state from emerging and allowing Al Qaeda to regroup. "While withdrawing a substantial number of American troops from Iraq would probably tamp down the insurgency and should be done as soon as is possible, a significant force must remain in Iraq for many years to destroy Al Qaeda in Iraq.
60 innocent civilians have been killed in what we call "democracy" in Afghanistan while in Iraq, six more soldiers have died, bringing the U.S. armed forces death toll /count for just the month of October - which does not end for nearly another week - 96, one of the bloodiest months in Iraq history, let alone the history of our occupation.
Holy shit, Batman. The U.S. is about to mount a coup in Iraq to overturn the elected government Bush-Rummy insisted we wanted? And we're not supposed to criticize either Bush Or Rumsfeld? And we're a ... what... a democracy? This from the Moonie-based UPI and Washington Times says the Bushies do not LIKE democracy (as if their previous words and deeds haven't already proven that to us):
Iraqi army officers are reportedly planning to stage a military coup with U.S. help to oust the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
Cairo-based Iraqi and Arab sources said Monday several officers visited Washington recently for talks with U.S. officials on plans for replacing Maliki's administration by a "national salvation" government with the mission to re-establish security and stability in Iraq.
One Iraqi source told United Press International that the Iraqi army officers' visit to the United States was aimed at coordinating the military coup in case the efforts of Maliki's government to restore order reached a dead end.
He said among the prominent officers were the deputy chief of staff, a Muslim Shiite, the intelligence chief, a Sunni, and the commander of the air force, a Kurd. It is believed the three would constitute the nucleus of the next government after the army takes over power.
The proposed plan, according to the source, stipulates that the new Iraqi army, with the assistance of U.S. forces, will take control of power, suspend the constitution, dissolve parliament and form a new government. The military will also take direct control of the various provinces and the administration after imposing a state of emergency.
An Arab source also told UPI that certain Arab countries were informed of the plan and requested to offer their help in convincing the former leaders of the deposed Baath Party regime residing in their countries to refrain from obstructing the move and stop violence perpetrated by the party in Iraq. In return, they will be invited to participate in the government at a later stage.
Well, yes, I would say that this is Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's view of everyone else in the world. In other words, if we have any criticism whatsoever, he doesn't want to hear him. We are just supposed to give Rumsfeld 65 cents of EVERY tax dollar to fortify his ego, if not his troops' body armor.
And he didn't even buy us dinner OR call us in the morning (how rude).
The American Association of Retired People (AARP) is pouring money into a "Don't Vote" campaign. I have some huge problems with this.
First, yes, I understand that the entire message from AARP is "Don't Vote until you know where your politicians stand on" health care reform, retirement, Social Security, etc. I'm fully supportive of an informed voting public.
Second, this is still a dangerous message to send out so close to election time, in a year where we may see record numbers of Americans turn out for mid-term votes. If the message was Get Informed And Vote, yeah, I'd be with them.
AARP seems a poor choice to be mounting this campaign when they take a LOT of blame for the horrendous Medicare drug program and Bush's "destroy Social Security" plan. This new campaign just seems to add to their previous debacles. Those over 50 should pay attention and do their own research without relying on AARP.
Blogger reports it's going down shortly for a scheduled outage. However, yesterday's outage left many unable to read blogs thru Blogspot as well as keeping bloggers from posting.
Urp.
[Ed. Update: Grass roots troop organizations are also circulating petitions to pull U.S. - as well as other coalition forces, out of Iraq.]
Again, like the impeachment question, these votes amount to non-binding resolutions. But I think it's important for Americans to voice their opposition or support for Bush's wars.
Between my connection and problems with Blogger, I've barely gotten to read comments and only been able to do a fraction of the posts I wanted.
Let me see if tonight is any kinder (oh please).
Liam Madden, interviewed the other night on "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" on MSNBC, already served a long tour in Iraq - principly in Heditha - called the whistleblower hot line - something the Bushies want to make illegal - to alert to illegal activities required of the troops by the Pentagon.
Madden said he had to "step outside my comfort zone" to speak out before more soldiers are sent to Iraq and more Iraqi civilians die without reason. He believes it should take no more than three months to bring all troops home, which is what he says he feels should happen.
If you haven't discovered JurassicPork over at Welcome to Pottersville yet, you are missing out, both for his original commentary and important articles from elsewhere. An example of the original work is found here.
Go. Read. Learn. Enjoy.
If you haven't discovered JurassicPork over at Welcome to Pottersville yet, you are missing out, both for his original commentary and important articles from elsewhere. An example of the original work is found here.
Go. Read. Learn. Enjoy.
You know, I barely have any interest in my own sex life, so trying to feign particular excitement about someone else's is a little tough on me. However, I keep hearing how the leading Republican candidate for governor in Florida (no, not Jeb - I would think that having Jeb announce he's gay would make many gay men turn straight) is gay AND that's he is not gay.
Anyone have any idea why this is supposed to matter?
OleBlue more than fills the bill, along with some interesting commentary.
Or, let me say, I assume he fills the bill since I've never gone online to find pictures of scantily clad women. Or scantily clad men, for that matter. Hell, I wish my dog would wear a three-piece suit but just getting a hat on him is a pain in the tush.
Old timers remember that I'm a big believer in the notion that everyone looks better in clothes, especially me.
Several good posts up around Blogtopia (yes, Skippy coined that phrase!), so let me start with Stranger at Blah3:
So, Bush is calling in the media to pull his ass out of the electoral fire. I'll emphasise one stence in the lede of this Reuters story in order to posit a question.And from Invictus also of Blah3:American radio talk-show hosts have become frontline warriors in a drive by President George W. Bush and his Republicans to pull off a surprise and maintain control of Congress in November 7 elections.
Okay, the question is an obvious one - if the hosts invited were from 'both sides,' can anyone tell me who showed up from our side? Anyone from Air America? Ed Schultz? Stephanie Miller?
In the face of opinion polls favoring Democrats and bad news from Iraq, Bush turned to the powerful hosts of talk radio two weeks before Americans elect 435 representatives to the U.S. House and a third of the 100-member Senate.
On Tuesday the White House invited more than three dozen hosts from both sides of the political spectrum so they could interview top administration officials.
Just who was invited from our side? I'll note that the only radio hack - erm, talk show host - interviewed in the story was that moron Sean Hannity, who appeared at a GOP rally in Cleveland.
lAs I watched Bush give his "won't leave until the job is done" speech this morning, I couldn't help but wonder why in the world the job isn't yet done? Bush's speech would have been perfectly suited for summer or fall of 2003 when we'd reached Rumsfeld's outer bound of six months (not yet known at that time as a "Friedman"). But it's not the summer or fall of 2003. It's almost winter 2006. And Bush is talking now as if he's been in a cryogenic freeze for the past three years and thinks the war in Iraq is only several months -- not several years -- old. Doesn't it go without saying that we should be flexible in our tactics and changing them if and when necessary to defeat our enemies? If we haven't been doing that all along, then I've got some serious concerns about our military leaders.
And we all know damn well the job will never be done on Bush's watch. There is no chance whatsoever we'll be out of there before the 2008 elections, which means that Bush will ride off into the sunset forever claiming that he did what needed to be done and, more importantly, that if (read: when) it doesn't work out according to what had been his plan (assuming he ever had one), well, hey, don't blame me, it's the next guy's fault.
And what meaning do the "benchmarks" have that we've supposedly given the Iraqis? Why should they care? Bottom line is they know we're "not leaving until the job is done," so if we tell them they've got to be providing five hours per day of electricity to their people by March 2007, and they're not, what are the consequences? None, that's what. The "benchmarks" are bullshit because everyone knows damn well we're not going anywhere.
Today's speech was a lame attempt to salvage something -- anything -- in the critical final days before the nation goes to the polls. There was nothing even remotely new or impressive about what Bush had to say. It was just more of the same.
MoDo gives us the straight dope from the biggest (and presumably straight) Dope-in-Chief (a snippet here but go over there for the rest of "We're back in the saddle a-gain):
Things have become so dire for the Republicans that now even Bush is distancing himself from Bush.For the rest, here's the best.
The president is cutting and running from the president.In a momentous event at the White House on Monday, Tony Snow made a major announcement about an important new strategy for Iraq. The president will no longer stay the course on the rallying cry “stay the course.”
A presidency built on message discipline (Message: “Stay the course”) is trying to salvage itself with some last-minute un-messaging (Message: “No more stay the course”).Of course, the administration has never really said what “the course” is, so it was never really apparent what “staying” it meant, anyhow.
It was a wacky moment for Tony Snow, who renounced the slogan while sticking to the policy. “It left the wrong impression about what was going on,” the press secretary said, “and it allowed critics to say, ‘Well, here’s an administration that’s just embarked upon a policy and not looking at what the situation is,’ when, in fact, it’s just the opposite.”
The important thing was that the cliché sounded good to Republicans, strong and virile, for a while. But pollsters for the White House seemed to be the last to learn that even many of the party faithful had soured on the phrase, deeming it inflexible and stupid. Has Karl Rove, who urged G.O.P. candidates to keep the Democrats on the defensive on national security, lost his magic?
In a White House with a Fox News all-spin sensibility, officials don’t think they need to change the strategy as much as they need to change their slogan.
The overworked Bush phrase suggested “burying your head in the sand,” Steve Hinkson, political director at Luntz Research Companies, a G.O.P. public opinion firm, told The Washington Post’s Peter Baker. “The problem is that as the number of people who agree with remaining resolute dwindles, that sort of language doesn’t strike a chord as much as it once did.”
Unwilling to admit mistakes or face the urgent need to go past semantic changes in a protectorate that has fallen into a vicious civil war, in which Americans are merely referees and targets, the White House is falling back on marketing. Just as Andy Card rolled out the war as a marketing event, the Bush team now thinks that all it needs to do is come up with a catchy and chesty new advertising pitch.
Bay Buchanan assured Wolf Blitzer that the president still intended to stay the course and seek victory, he just wouldn’t use that phrase, because it gave people the impression that W. was unwilling to change tactics.
After all, Dick Cheney told Rush Limbaugh last week that the inept Iraqi government was doing “remarkably well.”
But given the Republican meltdown, it’s obvious that Democrats are having better luck mocking the Republicans for staying the course than Republicans are having mocking the Democrats for cutting and running. But Democrats have no ingenious ideas about how to extricate ourselves from this nasty war either.
Yet W. once more accused the Democrats of wanting to cut and run in Iraq at a campaign stop in Sarasota, Fla., yesterday.
Many frantic Republican lawmakers are also running against themselves, either reneging on their support for the war they started, or railing against Washington, the town they absolutely control, claiming that the capital has forgotten their values, or making ads denouncing the Democrats’ “homosexual agenda,” even though Republicans are now the party of gay scandal.
...To W., the words he says to Americans don’t matter as much as the words Dick Cheney says to him. He just has to hope that daddy’s friend, James Baker, the smooth fixer who is co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group and who has already suggested moving past the meaningless partisan jargon of “cut and run” and “stay the course,” comes up with a plan to rescue Junior from a fine mess one more time.
MoDo gives us the straight dope from the biggest (and presumably straight) Dope-in-Chief (a snippet here but go over there for the rest of "We're back in the saddle a-gain):
Things have become so dire for the Republicans that now even Bush is distancing himself from Bush.For the rest, here's the best.
The president is cutting and running from the president.In a momentous event at the White House on Monday, Tony Snow made a major announcement about an important new strategy for Iraq. The president will no longer stay the course on the rallying cry “stay the course.”
A presidency built on message discipline (Message: “Stay the course”) is trying to salvage itself with some last-minute un-messaging (Message: “No more stay the course”).Of course, the administration has never really said what “the course” is, so it was never really apparent what “staying” it meant, anyhow.
It was a wacky moment for Tony Snow, who renounced the slogan while sticking to the policy. “It left the wrong impression about what was going on,” the press secretary said, “and it allowed critics to say, ‘Well, here’s an administration that’s just embarked upon a policy and not looking at what the situation is,’ when, in fact, it’s just the opposite.”
The important thing was that the cliché sounded good to Republicans, strong and virile, for a while. But pollsters for the White House seemed to be the last to learn that even many of the party faithful had soured on the phrase, deeming it inflexible and stupid. Has Karl Rove, who urged G.O.P. candidates to keep the Democrats on the defensive on national security, lost his magic?
In a White House with a Fox News all-spin sensibility, officials don’t think they need to change the strategy as much as they need to change their slogan.
The overworked Bush phrase suggested “burying your head in the sand,” Steve Hinkson, political director at Luntz Research Companies, a G.O.P. public opinion firm, told The Washington Post’s Peter Baker. “The problem is that as the number of people who agree with remaining resolute dwindles, that sort of language doesn’t strike a chord as much as it once did.”
Unwilling to admit mistakes or face the urgent need to go past semantic changes in a protectorate that has fallen into a vicious civil war, in which Americans are merely referees and targets, the White House is falling back on marketing. Just as Andy Card rolled out the war as a marketing event, the Bush team now thinks that all it needs to do is come up with a catchy and chesty new advertising pitch.
Bay Buchanan assured Wolf Blitzer that the president still intended to stay the course and seek victory, he just wouldn’t use that phrase, because it gave people the impression that W. was unwilling to change tactics.
After all, Dick Cheney told Rush Limbaugh last week that the inept Iraqi government was doing “remarkably well.”
But given the Republican meltdown, it’s obvious that Democrats are having better luck mocking the Republicans for staying the course than Republicans are having mocking the Democrats for cutting and running. But Democrats have no ingenious ideas about how to extricate ourselves from this nasty war either.
Yet W. once more accused the Democrats of wanting to cut and run in Iraq at a campaign stop in Sarasota, Fla., yesterday.
Many frantic Republican lawmakers are also running against themselves, either reneging on their support for the war they started, or railing against Washington, the town they absolutely control, claiming that the capital has forgotten their values, or making ads denouncing the Democrats’ “homosexual agenda,” even though Republicans are now the party of gay scandal.
...To W., the words he says to Americans don’t matter as much as the words Dick Cheney says to him. He just has to hope that daddy’s friend, James Baker, the smooth fixer who is co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group and who has already suggested moving past the meaningless partisan jargon of “cut and run” and “stay the course,” comes up with a plan to rescue Junior from a fine mess one more time.
MoDo gives us the straight dope from the biggest (and presumably straight) Dope-in-Chief (a snippet here but go over there for the rest of "We're back in the saddle a-gain):
Things have become so dire for the Republicans that now even Bush is distancing himself from Bush.For the rest, here's the best.
The president is cutting and running from the president.In a momentous event at the White House on Monday, Tony Snow made a major announcement about an important new strategy for Iraq. The president will no longer stay the course on the rallying cry “stay the course.”
A presidency built on message discipline (Message: “Stay the course”) is trying to salvage itself with some last-minute un-messaging (Message: “No more stay the course”).Of course, the administration has never really said what “the course” is, so it was never really apparent what “staying” it meant, anyhow.
It was a wacky moment for Tony Snow, who renounced the slogan while sticking to the policy. “It left the wrong impression about what was going on,” the press secretary said, “and it allowed critics to say, ‘Well, here’s an administration that’s just embarked upon a policy and not looking at what the situation is,’ when, in fact, it’s just the opposite.”
The important thing was that the cliché sounded good to Republicans, strong and virile, for a while. But pollsters for the White House seemed to be the last to learn that even many of the party faithful had soured on the phrase, deeming it inflexible and stupid. Has Karl Rove, who urged G.O.P. candidates to keep the Democrats on the defensive on national security, lost his magic?
In a White House with a Fox News all-spin sensibility, officials don’t think they need to change the strategy as much as they need to change their slogan.
The overworked Bush phrase suggested “burying your head in the sand,” Steve Hinkson, political director at Luntz Research Companies, a G.O.P. public opinion firm, told The Washington Post’s Peter Baker. “The problem is that as the number of people who agree with remaining resolute dwindles, that sort of language doesn’t strike a chord as much as it once did.”
Unwilling to admit mistakes or face the urgent need to go past semantic changes in a protectorate that has fallen into a vicious civil war, in which Americans are merely referees and targets, the White House is falling back on marketing. Just as Andy Card rolled out the war as a marketing event, the Bush team now thinks that all it needs to do is come up with a catchy and chesty new advertising pitch.
Bay Buchanan assured Wolf Blitzer that the president still intended to stay the course and seek victory, he just wouldn’t use that phrase, because it gave people the impression that W. was unwilling to change tactics.
After all, Dick Cheney told Rush Limbaugh last week that the inept Iraqi government was doing “remarkably well.”
But given the Republican meltdown, it’s obvious that Democrats are having better luck mocking the Republicans for staying the course than Republicans are having mocking the Democrats for cutting and running. But Democrats have no ingenious ideas about how to extricate ourselves from this nasty war either.
Yet W. once more accused the Democrats of wanting to cut and run in Iraq at a campaign stop in Sarasota, Fla., yesterday.
Many frantic Republican lawmakers are also running against themselves, either reneging on their support for the war they started, or railing against Washington, the town they absolutely control, claiming that the capital has forgotten their values, or making ads denouncing the Democrats’ “homosexual agenda,” even though Republicans are now the party of gay scandal.
...To W., the words he says to Americans don’t matter as much as the words Dick Cheney says to him. He just has to hope that daddy’s friend, James Baker, the smooth fixer who is co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group and who has already suggested moving past the meaningless partisan jargon of “cut and run” and “stay the course,” comes up with a plan to rescue Junior from a fine mess one more time.
If ABC's Political News Director agrees with Sociopath Bill O'Reilly that the media is "too" liberal - when hell, it ain't even centrist! when it falls over itself to make the playing field easy for the Bushies - then Mark Halperin needs to go and perhaps he should take ABC with him!
From Think Progress:
Yesterday, Mark Halperin, ABC Political Director and co-author of the new book The Way To Win, went on The O’Reilly Factor and agreed with Bill O’Reilly that members of the “old media” are too liberal and should “prove to conservatives that we understand their grievances.”
When O’Reilly pointedly asked him if he believed major news organizations — including ABC — had a liberal bias, Halperin repeated the right-wing talking point that the media is trying to suppress Republican turnout. He told O’Reilly, “If I were a conservative, I understand why I would feel suspicious that I was not going to get a fair break at the end of an election. We’ve got to make sure we do better, so conservatives don’t have to be concerned about that.”
Good for New Jersey.
However, I'm not sure what this may mean with less than two weeks to go to election day there.
Chuck from the Divided States of BushMerika2 agrees with me that impeachment, contrary to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, should be one of the very first things discussed if Republicans lose control (well, they can't seem to keep control over themselves, regardless) of the House and/or Senate.
From comments here:
Articles of Impeachment should be the first thing "on the table" in the House. If they can get bush & cheney, President Pelosi can go to work (dreaming). If the Senate is taken back this country may begin a climb out of the abyss.
While Reporters Without Borders sees someimprovement on freedom for journalists, others - like notably the freefalling United States - are making progress only in the very wrong direction.
Some poor countries, such as Mauritania and Haiti, improved their record in a global press freedom index this year, while France, the United States and Japan slipped further down the scale of 168 countries rated, the group Reporters Without Borders said yesterday.
The news media advocacy organization said the most repressive countries in terms of journalistic freedom -- such as North Korea, Cuba, Burma and China -- made no advances at all.
The organization's fifth annual Worldwide Press Freedom Index tracks actions against news media through the end of September. The group noted its concern over the declining rankings of some Western democracies as well as the persistence of other countries in imposing harsh punishments on media that criticize political leaders.
"Unfortunately nothing has changed in the countries that are the worst predators of press freedom, and journalists in North Korea, Eritrea, Turkmenistan, Cuba, Burma and China are still risking their life or imprisonment for trying to keep us informed," the organization said in a news release. North Korea holds the worst ranking at 168.
Iran ranks 162nd, between Saudi Arabia and China. The report said conditions in Russia and Belarus have not improved. It said that Russia continued to steadily dismantle the independent media and that the recent slaying of investigative journalist Anna Politkovskaya "is a poor omen for the coming year."
Northern European countries top the index, with no reported censorship, threats, intimidation or physical reprisals, either by officials or the public, in Finland, Ireland, Iceland and the Netherlands. All of those countries were ranked in first place.
Serious threats against the artists and publishers of the Muhammad cartoons, which caricatured the prophet of Islam, caused Denmark, which was also in first place last year, to drop to 19th place. Yemen, at 149th place, slipped four places, mostly because of the arrests of journalists and the closure of newspapers that reprinted the cartoons. Journalists in Algeria, Jordan, Indonesia and India were harassed because of the cartoons as well.
Although it ranked 17th on the first list, published in 2002, the United States now stands at 53, having fallen nine places since last year.
"Relations between the media and the Bush administration sharply deteriorated after the president used the pretext of 'national security' to regard as suspicious any journalist who questioned his 'war on terrorism,' " the group said.
The more we hear about what Israel does, the worse it gets.
Listening to the intro to the putrid Scarborough Country on MSNBC tonight, I was amazed by two things:
First, considering they are at different ends of the informational spectrum, the never-quite-explained-why-he-left-Congress-or-how-his-female-office-manager-died-in-his-office-at-that-time Joe Scarbrough seems to steal what few interesting moments his show has from Keith Olbermann's Countdown on MSNBC, and...
Second, Joe's started what some of the other nutwingers have been doing for a few weeks: trying to scare everyone in a "What happens when the most leftist liberals take over the country" fear factor episode.
The latter is even more laughable than the first, because we have never seen a far left scenario in Washington so I truly doubt we'll see this if the Dems do manage to do well in the mid-term elections. One he cited was how Congressman John Conyers already had compiled his articles of impeachment against Bush. Apparently Joe failed to hear about Nancy Pelosi's comment saying there would be no impeachment if she became head of the majority in the House.
But more importantly, Dems know that this is a mid-term election heading into a presidential bid in 2008. They will hardly run amok knowing the most important prize is right within their sights. However, I doubt they intend to do this anyway. Only the "compassionate conservatives" of the last six years have acted like they could do anything they wanted, no matter how outrageous and illegal it was.
Media Girl offers us this of the compassionate conservative GOP:
The drama of Tan Nguyen and how his campaign attempted to scare away Hispanic voters from showing up and voting for his opponent, Loretta Sanchez, has been unfolding for a few days now. I really thought this was just a little scandal, another imploding campaign. I figured Tan Nguyen would withdraw and that would be that.
But no. Apparently Tan Nguyen is claiming that the real problem is not the alleged criminal behavior of his campaign, but rather the investigation into that alleged criminal behavior.A Republican congressional candidate whose campaign is being investigated for sending intimidating letters to Hispanic voters lashed out at his Democratic rival, saying she was fueling the uproar over the mailings.
Here's a little background:
Tan Nguyen on Sunday rejected calls to drop out of the race to unseat longtime Rep. Loretta Sanchez (news, bio, voting record), and implied the popular congresswoman was behind the probes into the letters warning immigrants they could be deported or jailed for voting in next month's election.
"There has been no crime committed so why is there a criminal investigation three weeks prior to a very important election?" Nguyen asked. "What is going on? Who is fueling this investigation?"Nguyen said Sunday he did not authorize or approve the letters, which warn in Spanish: "You are advised that if your residence in this country is illegal or you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that could result in jail time."
So who sent these mailings? His campaign office manager! And get this: He fired her last week, but now wants her back.
In reality, immigrants who have become naturalized U.S. citizens are eligible to vote.
California Department of Justice investigators searched Nguyen's campaign headquarters on Friday, as well as his residence and a home listed as belonging to one of his staffers.
Investigators are looking into possible voting rights violations.
In other words, he's endorsing intimidating voters, and complaining that criminal investigations into this are the problem.Nguyen said Sanchez was "fueling this hysteria" and investigators were "terrorizing my family and volunteers" and violating his right to free speech.
If he wants to put this behind him, he should own up and take responsibility for his own campaign. He should apologize. Of course, taking responsibility and apologizing aren't things Republican politicians do these days.
Media Girl also points us to a service that provides genuine compassion to women in need of emergency contraception:
This link is where you can get Plan B emergency contraception.Truer words are rarely said. TY, Media Girl, and tyvm to these "Janes."Welcome to Emergency Kindness, a nonprofit organization dedicated to providing emergency contraception for women in need.
And this link is the Emergency Kindness blog about emergency contraception.
Emergency Kindness is run by a team of "Janes" spread throughout the country. EC is hard to get in America due to the widespread practice of doctors and pharmacists refusing to give the pill because it conflicts with their personal beliefs. If you are having trouble procuring EC, we will do everything in our power to get it to you before your 72 hours are up.
Unfortunately, these kinds of efforts are necessary so that women in need of contraception are not held hostage and victimized by pharmacists who want to play doctor. If a pharmacist has "moral objections" to dispensing legal pharmaceuticals, such as Plan B emergency contraception birth control pills, then he or she should find a different profession.
My bet's on the latter, since even before 9-11, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have worked their damnedest to terrify Americans, from the economy to how God feels about stem cells and then, after September 11th, to scare them about their neighbors, Democrats, dissidents, newspapers, and everything else.
This was the topic of another excellent Special Comment - Advertising Terrorism - tendered last night by Keith Olbermann on MSNBC's Countdown. A long snippet is here, but go there for the video as well as the full transcript.
Tonight, a special comment on the advertising of terrorism – the commercial you have already seen.
It is a distillation of everything this administration and the party in power have tried to do these last five years and six weeks.
It is from the Republican National Committee; It shows images of Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri;
It offers quotes from them—all as a clock ticks ominously in the background.
It concludes with what Zawahiri may or may not have said to a Pakistani journalist as long ago as 2001: His dubious claim that he had purchased “suitcase bombs.”
The quotation is followed (by sheer coincidence no doubt) by an image of a massive explosion.
“These are the stakes,” appears on the screen, quoting exactly from Lyndon Johnson’s infamous nuclear scare commercial from 1964.
“Vote—November 7th.”
There is a cheap “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” quality to the whole thing, and it also serves to immediately call to mind the occasions when President Bush dismissed Osama bin Laden as somebody he didn’t think about—except, obviously, when elections were near.
Frankly, a lot of people seeing that commercial for the first time, have laughed out loud.
But—not everyone.
And therein lies the true threat to this country.
The dictionary definition of the word “terrorize” is simple and not open to misinterpretation:
“To fill or overpower with terror; terrify. To coerce by intimidation or fear.”
Note please, that the words “violence” and “death” are missing from that definition.
The key to terror, the key to terrorism, is not the act—but the fear of the act.
That is why bin Laden and his deputies and his imitators are forever putting together videotaped statements and releasing virtual infomercials with dire threats and heart-stopping warnings.
But why is the Republican Party imitating them?
Bin Laden puts out what amounts to a commercial of fear; The Republicans put out what is unmistakable as a commercial of fear.
The Republicans are paying to have the messages of bin Laden and the others broadcast into your home.
Only the Republicans have a bigger bank roll.
As reported by Roll Call noted at TPM Muckraker:
"Facing an FBI investigation of his top staff and scrutiny of his own financial records, Sen. Arlen Specter [R-PA] said he currently is weighing 'the pros and cons' of whether to eliminate earmarks entirely from the annual Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and related agencies spending measure.
"Specter, whose staffers are being investigated for allegedly improperly securing earmarks for businesses owned by their family members, currently chairs the Appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over the bill. He said in a recent interview that he plans to talk to his fellow Senators about the idea of ridding the measure of targeted spending provisions but has yet to reach a final determination." (Roll Call)
Just about everyone is saying that the November 7th mid-term election is the Democrats' to lose because the vast majority of the country is way past fed-up with the Bushies, Iraq, tax cuts for billionaires, and the great nose dive all major public services (health, public schools, libraries, infrastructures) have taken since November 2000.
As I posted yesterday, I don't think we can afford to assume anything. I think it's within the realm of possibility that we're going to get an excellent example of rigged electronic voting on November 7th where we'll see Republicans win races in which they got very few votes.
But let's ignore that scary point for a moment. Even if Dems do manage to score victory on November 7th, they have to demonstrate a platform that stands for something more than "We're sick and tired of Bush-Cheney." If they don't pull together this substance, they won't maintain any momentum moving into the presidential election of November 2008.
I missed "60 Minutes" last night, so I missed the now infamous Nancy Pelosi sound byte where she says that if she becomes the next majority leader of the House, impeachment will NOT be on the table. Read the good folks at Green Mountain Daily for the details.
Gee, Nancy... we impeached over a blue dress.
Don't you think lying us into multiple wars, drastically making us less safe, giving money to billionaires while the country goes bankrupt... none of this warrants impeachment?
Don't go away mad, Nancy. Just go fucking far away.
As Keith Olbermann is ably pointing out now on MSNBC, it is frightfully ridiculous for Bush with George Stephanopoulos and Tony Snow to insist they were "never about stay the course", when that's all they handed us for two years.
A new ABC News-Gallup poll reports that the GOP has lost the battle for the "hearts and minds" of non-party affiliated (Independent) voters.
This is no surprise.
However, imagine how surprised many of will be on November 7th election night when - miracle of miracles - all those GOP-owned electronic voting systems magically award most if not all votes to Republicans.
I think this could happen. And - based on how little anyone did when this happened in the presidential races of 2000 and 2004 - I think it's very possible no one in power will do anything to prevent this travesty from occurring.
Your thoughts?
For the most part, I like to think of Vermont as usually out of the foolish fray of partisan politics. Sure, we see some of the same stupidity you see everywhere else, but most of the Vermonters I know don't play the straight-ticket-voting games so much of the rest of the country does.
So it's with particular and very sad disappointment this mid-term election season when I've seen the Republican crap of everywhere else invade our politics.
Example: Republicans using Jim Jeffords to endorse Martha Rainville when Jeffords does NOT endorse Rainville. And Martha just throws up her hands at this and indicates it's not her fault.
But that's the thing with Martha Rainville's campaign. For someone who bills herself as "the nonpartisan candidate", her campaign has been Republican through-and-through, from the "It's not my fault" plagiarism, to the Jeffords endorsement that never happened, to claiming to have her own health care plan when she does not, to insisting she made sure that every national guardsman had body armor when they didn't.
Now, I don't dislike Martha Rainville. I do think she's better than average. But feeling she's better than average, I expected a better campaign than she delivered. And she can't just use the excuse that the national Republicans made her do this when she's claiming to run as "not beholden to national GOP interests."
Rich Tarrant, however, is infuriating, disappointing, and outright creepy. His commercials early on gave us a feel for the Rich who lied his way to being both rich and important. Now they tell us that his great experience with health care will give us the best health plan.
Earth to Republicans: Tarrant developed a medical billing program. This is NOT health care.
And it goes downhill from there with Rich, so I'll stop here.
I've watched Web searches and hits swell every time there is a "surprise" announcement that a U.S. Congressman like Mark Foley or a U.S. Senator like Larry Craig (who is rumored to be) is gay.
But why?
Statisticians tell us that approximately one in every 10 Americans is homosexual, which is roughly the same number as those who have been admitted to any kind of hospital for mental illness.
But let me point out that being gay sadly still brings with it the great stigma that mental illness does. Oh sure, we talk about both now far more openly than we once did, but secretly, there remains the cluck of tongues, the secret wonder, "what did they do wrong?"
With this in mind, can we really believe that only one in every 10 Americans is gay?
Yet, even if this figure is right, when will we stop being so damned shocked and titillated at the thought someone is homosexual?
There is one person who reads this blog who knows how I reacted when this person came out and told me; he did nothing in particular to try to conceal this information and was floored when I literally fell off my couch as he told me he was gay - he figured I already knew given that we spent hours each day together.
But I was pretty naive and sheltered back then. I was barely knowledgeable about sex in general, let alone anything more specific. And yet today, in seeing how the public responds to a public official being gay, I wonder how they managed to be as naive and unknowledgeable today - given the media - as I was in college.
Y'know, I quit smoking some time ago.
But I'm at the point where either Bush gets impeached and sent to Gitmo as a "disappeared" detainee with charges so secret even he won't know what they are (the same thing the Bushies plan to do under the Military Commissions Act) OR I start smoking again.
Since neither myself nor my lungs can afford the latter, can we pretty please impeach and detain Mr. Bush?
More Essential Glenn Greenwald:
Does Senator John McCain (R - mixes up his Viagra with his salt petre and Lithium) have an exit strategy - a/k/a Grand Plan - for Iraq? Specifically, one that might work compared to the many versions of the Bushies' plans, none of which has even come close to working.
Also, what inanity are the Bushes presenting in the questionable form of American security after signing the completely disastrous and almost entirely illegal Military Commissions Act last week? And why don't the Bushes realizes that just one little action would make the U.S. and its investments 500-1,000% safer than it is right now: impeach every single Bushie.
If you answered:
If you answered:
The former head of Germany, Schroeder - since replaced by the woman Merkel Bush molested in public at the G8 meeting this summer - tells us that Bush's incessant God talk and ridiculous statements made him sick.
Me, too. Me, too.
It's always been my heartfelt belief that Republicans see privacy with their usual double- and triple-standards in place. In other words, their own privacy is invaluable, but anyone else's privacy should not be allowed; after all, if someone wants privacy, then they must have something to hide.
Glenn Greenwald tackles Republicans, privacy, Sean Hannity and Fox News, and Ohio's latest skanky candidate, the Ohio Secretary of State who cheated so successfully in the 2004 presidental election that he handed a Kerry win there into a Bush "victory". Also, do not read this just before you eat because Sean Hannity's name is mentioned andI don't think anyone can keep food down while even contemplating Hannity, A snip is here, but visit Unclaimed Territory to read in full.
We learned this week that the one thing Republicans find absolutely despicable is using someone's private homosexuality for political gain. Politics might be a contact sport, but they simply cannot tolerate the disclosure of a politician's private sexual behavior. For instance, The Cincinnati Enquirer reported on Thursday that Ohio Republican Ken Blackwell is now attempting to win his election for Governor by working with Fox News' Sean Hannity and another right-wing radio talk show host to publicize innuendo that Blackwell's Democratic opponent, the married Ted Strickland, is gay:Ken Blackwell’s gubernatorial campaign today distributed harsh comments by radio talk show host Bill Cunningham related to Ted Strickland’s sexuality and about a former campaign aide arrested in 1994 for public indecency.
On Wednesday night, Sean Hannity put Cunningham on Fox's Hannity & Colmes in order to disseminate the innuendo that Strickland is gay, the "proof" being that he took a trip to Italy with his 26-year-old "boy toy" Congressional aide. And now, the Blackwell campaign itself is sending these "reports" of Strickland's alleged homosexuality to reporters throughout Ohio.
In a news statement emailed to Statehouse reporters, the campaign reprinted a transcript from Wednesday night’s Fox News’ Hannity and Colmes television show. The show’s co-host, Sean Hannity, is a Blackwell supporter, who will be in Blue Ash for a Blackwell rally today. They also sent out a digital video version.
Cunningham, who hosts a talk radio show on WLW radio, was a guest on the program. During the TV broadcast, Cunningham questioned the Democratic congressman’s sexuality -- even after Strickland declared Wednesday: “No, I am not gay, although it is none of their business in the first place.”
At one point in the Fox News interview, Cunningham said: “After the (1998) election Ted Strickland flies off to the shores of Naples, Italy in order to enjoy a little fun with this 26-year-old boy toy" . . . .“
Sean Hannity is campaigning today with Ken Blackwell in Cincinnati. So propping up a Blackwell supporter on a television that is hosted by a Blackwell supporter does not make for legitimate news,’’ [Strickland campaign spokesman Keith] Dailey said. “These guys are desperate. They’re losing horribly in the polls. People are turning away from this kind of negative politicking. It seems to just draw the nastiness out of them more. ”
Right-wing pundits this week spent several days expressing such intense outrage over the outing by Mike Rogers, claiming that the conduct of this single, obscure blogger somehow shows how depraved and evil The Democratic Party itself is. Many of them literally claimed that Democrats deserve to lose the election because of the actions of Rogers. A certain loyal gay Republican rather sadly claimed that the Mike Rogers outing incident shows that Republicans have now become the pro-gay party ("it is conservatives sticking up for gay people and their privacy").
Glenn Reynolds actually said yesterday that he voted for Republican Bob Corker over Democrat Harold Ford in the Tennessee Senate race in large part because of the Mike Rogers outing incident: "ultimately the combination of Ford's "F" rating on gun rights and the sleazy 'outing' behavior of the Democrats was such that I just felt I had to vote Republican in this race" and "not long ago I was thinking that a Democratic majority in Congress wouldn't be so bad; but the sexual McCarthyism from the pro-outing crowd, coupled with the Dems' steadfast refusal to offer anything useful on national security, has convinced me that they just don't deserve a victory with those tactics."
Ken Blackwell was chosen to be the nominee of the Republican Party for Governor in Ohio. He has the support of the entire GOP national political establishment, is an elected Republican official, played a crucial role in George Bush's 2004 victory in Ohio, and has been widely considered a rising Republican star. After Rush Limbaugh (who has long spread insinuations that Hillary Clinton is gay), Sean Hannity (who this week also promoted and defended a new book claiming that Cindy Sheehan had an affair with Lew Rockwell and is an online porn addict) is the most popular GOP pundit in the country.
Today, CNN was making a bit of a deal about how, when her name appears as a possible presidential candidate with either Republican nutty fruitcake Senator John McCain or former NY mayor Rudy Giuliani (worse than a nutty fruitcake, a true sell-out of incomparable measure), she does really well.
I'd sure as hell hate to see the 2008 presidential race come down to a choice of Hillary, McCain, or Giuliani. As much as I would like to see a woman in the Oval Office, there are better women than Hillary. She is NOT like Bill and people should not confuse her with "another Clinton". She's as much of a sellout as Giuliani and McCain, although she sells out to different people. With Hillary, somehow a woman's right to choose becomes not so clear.
McCain presents the same problem in 2008 as John Kerry did in 2004. We may honor what each of these Johns stood up to in Vietnam, but does that mean we have to vote for them so many decades later.
Thankfully, the left doesn't need to expend energy denouncing Rudy because the far right will do enough of a hatchet job on him. And not for the right reasons, like Rudy sold out all of NY after 9-11 and tried to force the highly suspect Bernie Kerik on us as head of Department of Homeland (In)Security just to give Rudy more no bid contracts with Washington.
So who would any of you like to see as a serious candidate in '08?
Do any of these three actually interest you and, if so, why?
Now, for all this WaPo article states, one it does not - but should - is the fact that since 9/11, Republican politicians and the entire rest of the GOP decided they were invincible, that they could get away with anything and everything. And sadly, we let them do it, too.
Now, for all this WaPo article states, one it does not - but should - is the fact that since 9/11, Republican politicians and the entire rest of the GOP decided they were invincible, that they could get away with anything and everything. And sadly, we let them do it, too.
| Gasoline Prices |
| energy policy |
| Pounds of CO2 this year |
Cost of the War in Iraq
Vermonters and Vermont Lovers? Click above to visit our Vermont "sister" blog, Vermont, Now & Zen.
NEW: Buy Peter Lance's
Buy David Kuo's
Buy Amy Goodman's
"Static: Gov't Liars...And The People Who Fight Back"
Buy Frank Rich's
"The Greatest Story Ever Sold: The Decline and Fall of the Truth from 9/11 to Katrina"
Buy Bob Woodward's
Buy Keith Olbermann's
"The Worst Person in the World"
Buy John Dean's
"Conservatives Without Conscience"
Buy Thom Hartmann's
"Screwed: The Undeclared War Against The Middle Class"
Buy David Sirota's
Buy Kate J. Chase's
Buy Kate J. Chase's
"Savvy Guide to Car Maintenance & Repair"
Buy Kate J. Chase's
