America's Least Wanted

Carlson v. Chuckles

2007-01-11T00:07:00.000-06:00

I haven't been doing much posting over at Demokat, so I certainly haven't filled in much for Paul here either. This, however, really got my goat, so I thought I'd cross post over here. I believe it to be true. If it's not, Chuckles is going to have some pretty impressive bloggers calling his ass out, and I don't think even he is that ballsy. Here you go:

Tucker Carlson has had Chuckles, one of us lowly bloggers, fired from his job for mentioning that the Tuckbag visited his place of (former) employment, a video store.

In my opinion, the post was completely innocuous and much, much less inflammatory than anything I would have posted had I run across the slimebag.

Then, last Friday night:

Compare what I wrote to this absolutely true exchange from Friday night when you marched into the store:

Tucker: If you keep this shit up, I will fucking destroy you.
The Genius (Me): Whoah, perhaps you would like to take this outside where you can continue threatening me without disturbing the other customers.
Tucker: *Looks out the window, then back at me* I am not threatening you.
The Genius: You just said you would fucking destroy me.
Tucker: No, I didn't.

I can see where I might have erred in my previous post. I wasn't a belligerent chundernozzle. At one point, Tucker was heard to exclaim

"Don't whoah me"
in response to my attempts to bring the conversation back into the realm of sanity. Since I am a basically nice guy, I even took down the post. Upon learning that Tucker followed through on his threat of destruction, I republished the post that so aggravated him and was allegedly threatening.

Chuckles also relates how just a day or two ago, his former co-worker was hassled by a man claiming to be Carlson's attorney, demanding Chuckles personal info.

This story is being re-posted all over the internets and appears to be truthful. Pass it on. Let's hope Carlson gets his due, if not by legal retaliatory means, then at least via the blogosphere. Hopefully, if it's spread far and wide enough, the MSM will pick up on it.

IMPEACHMENT

2006-12-12T05:37:00.000-06:00

Much is being said these days about the Democrats not calling for impeachment as the first order of business. I want this president impeached. I want this president in a freakin' dungeon for the rest of his miserable days. However, in my opinion, they are doing exactly the right thing.

Why? Because if you go in with impeachment guns blazing you do yourself more harm than good. Not only do you rally the wingnuts to the Republican party when they are now split, not only do you give doubts to the American public about your seriousness about governing responsibly, not only do you chance a lack of credibility in a thousand different ways, you loose your most valuable tool for reigning in this most imperious President arguably in American history. And if you do that, then you deserve all of the above and then some.

Pelosi is correct in calling for hearings. Have the hearings. Make the bastards testify. But, hold onto that impeachment option. Make it a sword hanging above Bush's head. A sword of Damocles, if you will. Threaten him with it falling if he does not begin withdrawing the troops. Let it fall if and only if he removes that veto pen from his pocket when our bills cross his desk.

Use it in this way, and show the people how power, real power, is wielded with finesse. Let it fall and you only show the people how power is squandered, yet again, in the hands of Democrats.

Pretty much like I can make a mess out of similies and metaphors.

(I promised Paul that I'd post or cross-post anything I thought might not absolutely ruin his blog in his absence. Hopefully, this qualifies.)

JUST A LITTLE MORE BREAK...

2006-12-07T17:47:00.000-06:00

Okay, I have decided that my short break is instead going to become a long break, as in a few months or so. I realize that I am basically burned out after averaging about four posts a day for almost four months. This is obviously not my full time job (oh, what a joy it would be if that were the case) so I have the freedom to step away and take a break every now and then. This is one of those times.

As I've scanned the various blogs and online news sources, I'm starting to feel like things in general are in a rut - some right winger says something totally outrageous and that leads to outrage by left. Then we rinse and repeat as necessary. And, of course, there's the standard day-in and day-out lying by Bush on whatever subject he feels like fibbing about on a given day. As this pitiful little man becomes more and more detached from reality, it almost becomes too easy to metaphorically slap him everyday, so I've decided to invoke a personal mercy rule on his sad little ass for a while. Like I said, I think that I just need to take a little break and recharge my batteries for a few months, then I'll be ready to chronicle the waning days of this dark chapter in our history.

After the '04 elections, I was completely burned out (but for obviously different reasons) and did nothing with politics for about six-eight months. I get the feeling that this break will be shorter but still substantial. I figure by the time I return in a few months, the early presidential campaigning will have begun and I can start sinking my teeth into it.

And there's also the fact that my first semester of graduate school is coming up (though a totally final decision on my attending hasn't been made at this point) so my time would be extra-short as I readjusted to schooling after a 10-year absense.

So anyway, I'd like to thank all those who have read and enjoyed my writing. For the most part I enjoyed it as well (and honestly, if all I had to do was write, I'd probably still be doing it; it's all the self-promotion in order to get eyeballs here that gets tedious) and look forward to getting back to it after a while. I would like to give a special thanks to all those who saw fit to bookmark me (the twenty or so of you); regular readers are a real catnip to me. Don't delete my bookmark just yet, folks. I shall return.

A LITTLE SOMETHING BEFORE I GO

2006-11-29T22:31:00.000-06:00

Regular readers know that I’m not one of those link pimpers – bloggers who simply write one-line posts that direct to read someone else’s work. Granted, I read many blogs to develop ideas and then present what I hope is an interesting take from the originator on a given issue, and I will always credit that original blog. But I tend to shy away from being a table of contents for other blogs.
All that being said, since I’m on a mini-hiatus, I wanted to direct my readers to a couple of things I’ve read recently that I would have normally taken a shot at molding a snarky opinion about, but instead will just throw at you link-pimp style:

Up first is a guy by the name of Peter Schwiezer, a conservative who systematically got his ass handed to him because he can’t take the time to actually research what he’s talking about and railing against. His response when called to the carpet for sloppy work: “It's not my responsibility to go and find out how every single particular circumstance…” Um, if you’re going to go around throwing around your unfounded accusations, then maybe making it your responsibility to go around and find out stuff is something you oughta look into.

Next up, the slings and arrows directed at potential Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama have already begun to fly. And because the GOP are a bunch of children, they’ve taken to noting that Mr. Obama’s middle name is Hussein. Because that’s important. See, Mr. Obama is a junior, so that means that he’s named after his dad, who was given the name before he was born. Not wishing to dig to deep on this, I’d assume that his dad was born in the 1930s or so. The evil Saddam Hussein was born about a quarter century later, and he wasn’t even all that evil until the 90s. I say this because the U.S. was awful chummy with him in the 80s. As a commenter noted, “Hopefully, this will only reinforce what should have been obvious at least by 1999 or so: Republicans are really good at childish, schoolyard taunting.”

I loved this piece from the Boston Globe. It gives a real historical perspective of Dick Cheney and his quest to restore the power of the presidency back to its pre-Watergate levels. It’s both fascinating and frightening the way the man will shit on any law that he finds personally offensive to his quest. (The piece does require a quick registration, which always bugs me, but it’s free so just do it and go read it. Highest recommendation.)

And finally, I suppose I'll close with this little tidbit from Bob Cesca over at Huffpo as it's something that's often stuck in my craw - (some in) the GOP's insistence on calling the Democratic Party the Democrat Party. Take it away, Bob:

10) The devilish wordsmiths who think it's strategic and clever to refer to the Democratic Party as the "Democrat Party" need to stop it. Shut the f*** up. The official name of the party is the Democratic Party, with the "ic" at the end. Yeah, I know. Newt Gingrich and Frank Luntz invented the idea of saying "Democrat Party" or "the Democrat leadership" or "the Democrat voters" in order to emphasize the "rat" syllable, leaving a rat-like subliminal hint in the minds of listeners. President Bush, in his so-called "conciliatory" press conference Wednesday, used this incorrect pronunciation several times.
"And while the ballots are still being counted in the Senate, it is clear the Democrat Party had a good night last night, and I congratulate them on their victories."

"This morning I spoke with Republican and Democrat leadership in the House and Senate."
"...we'll begin consultations with the Democrat leadership starting Thursday and Friday."
"...and now work with Democrat leaders in the Congress because they control the committees and they control the flow of bills."
"We got some tax cuts passed with Democrat votes."

I know, it's a small thing, but it's just so silly and stupid and annoying; I'm glad I'm not the only one perturbed by it. Or, as slacktivist so eloquently put it:

Considering how popular this childish verbal tic has become among Republican politicians and pundits, I'm guessing that Luntz must've had some polling data to suggest it was somehow an effective "subliminable" way of influencing opinion, and that it must sound to some people as something other than what it sounds like to me: People who aren't smart enough to pronounce a four-syllable word properly. This kind of seriously unserious tactic is part of why I'm unwilling to trust these people with serious matters. (That and, you know, Iraq, Katrina, the deficit, etc.)

That'll about do it for me, folks. See you in a week or so. Thanks for coming by; I'll be back soon.

TAKING A SHORT BREAK

2006-11-29T16:08:00.000-06:00

I'm going to be doing some traveling over the next few days and will be away from a computer for much of that time (which is always a traumatic experience) so I will not be posting until Sunday/Monday. The closest I'll get to the internet is my phone, which is great for checking the weather or a sports score, but pointless for surfing and posting.
First, I'll be driving from home (from Daphne, Alabama) to New Orleans so that I can catch a flight to a town south of Cleveland for my company's annual end of the year party (yes, we cannot call it a Christmas party; O'Reilly would flip). I'm sort of disappointed about this year's trip as this is usually my only chance at seeing snow for a year and it's been unseasonably warm with weather forecast in the 40s-50s with no snow; drat! My flight leaves at 6am the following morning (which should be a real treat what with the expected hangover and all) to make it back to New Orleans, at which point I'll travel west about 120 miles to Lafayette to do a little tailgating with some old college friends for the final game of the season for my Louisiana Ragin' Cajuns. My wife has never tailgated or been to a college football game so she seems excited (and would be even more so if not for the driving). We'll also have my daughter there and she should have a great time playing with all of my buddies' kids. I've seen these guys at their worst (as they have seen me), can't wait to see them as dads.
We'll stay in Lafayette that night, then head home to Alabama, making every effort to make it home by noon for the Saints/49ers game. It's about a 4-5 hour trip so we'll need to get started early which probably won't be a problem given that we'll be sharing a bed with a restless two year old who likes to wake at 5:30 every morning.

I may be able to squeeze in a post or two, but I'm not expecting so. Hopefully Kat will still hit you with her usual wit and wisdom while I'm away. And on a related note, I'm still looking for an aspiring writer who might be interesting in taking a stab at political blogging. I've had a couple of nibbles of interest but they haven't panned out so I'm still in the market. As I've stated in the past, I'm just looking for someone with an opinion and an ability to competently express it. Kos wasn't born in a day and Atrios didn't start out huge; we all start somewhere. Interested?

WAR OF WORDS

2006-11-28T22:15:00.000-06:00

Bush is just batting 1.000 when it comes to making friends with the new Democratic majority in Congress (from The Hill via TPM):

At a private reception held at the White House with newly elected lawmakers shortly after the election, Bush asked [new senator from Virginia, Jim] Webb how his son, a Marine lance corporal serving in Iraq, was doing.

Webb responded that he really wanted to see his son brought back home, said a person who heard about the exchange from Webb.

“I didn’t ask you that, I asked how he’s doing,” Bush retorted, according to the source.

Webb confessed that he was so angered by this that he was tempted to slug the commander-in-chief, reported the source, but of course didn’t. It’s safe to say, however, that Bush and Webb won’t be taking any overseas trips together anytime soon.

Anybody got a knife? I think there be tension that requires some cutting.

FROM THE SUBLIME...

2006-11-28T17:57:00.000-06:00

So, I hear that there's a new book coming to bookstores soon entitled "Culture of Corruption" and it'll be all about chronicling the corruption of today's Republican Party. Hmm? What's that...? Oh, my bad, it chronicles the corruption of today's Democratic Party. Whaaaa? Yes, that's correct, two wacky wingers (Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan) have taken the time to publish a pamphlet on the evil corruption that threatens the very existence of the Democratic Party. So what exactly will they be covering? Okay, I'll give the the William "Cold Cash" Jefferson one; that's an easy one. But based on the caricatured cover art for the book, it looks like they'll also be taking shots at Cynthia McKinney (she of the whacking a congressional security guard nonsense, and who isn't even in the Congress anymore), as well as Charles Schumer (what'd he do besides help the Dems regain control of the Senate; which I suppose in their eyes is a criminal offense) and Harry Reid (who the rightwing noise machine futilely attempted to paint with the corruption brush throughout the campaign to little avail). The art on the cover is highly caricatured, so I cannot really tell who is is there, though there is one who sort of looks like Ted Kennedy (because it's never too late to make more Chappaquidick attacks) and another that sort of looks like Nancy Pelosi (who is corrupt simply for being one of them evil San Francisco Liberals).

Still, it seems sort of funny to waste time on a book about a party that's been out of power for twelve years and thus had no substantial power and therefore had no influence to peddle or corrupt. But there I go again attempting to make sense of rightwing nonsensery (yeah, it's a word I just made up).

Probably the funniest part of this whole thing in a monumentally ironic sort of way is the featured cover blurb by none other than one of the most corrupt politicians in the long and storied history of the United States Congress; disgraced and indicted former Rep. Tom DeLay.

I'm excited to report that Caucus of Corruption has received its first endorsement! Our first endorsement comes from Rep. Tom DeLay, a great man and politician who found himself the number one target of Democrats in their phony ethics war.

The true story has always been there, and we're pleased that we're able to tell it. Matt and I wish to thank Tom DeLay not only for his endorsement, but also for his service to our nation.

Here's a snippit from DeLay's endorsement:

"...Margolis and Noonan have cut through the smoke and mirrors to reveal what the liberals are really hiding - their complete lack of leadership and refusal to stand up for the values-based agenda most Americans are demanding. This book is a must read for all Americans looking for the unreported motivations behind the Left's political scene."

Oh, that's just awesome! Of course I won't even get into the fact that the post of this endorsement is dated September 24, 2006 which seems odd considering that the manuscript wasn't delivered to the publisher until November 12. It's just the fact that these two yahoos would proudly trumpet the endorsement of the offensively corrupt Tom DeLay (with a cover blurb, no less) is preposterous. It's like getting Dahmer's endorsement on the brutality of John Wayne Gacy. But then again, DeLay has demonstrated a marked proficiency towards corruption so who better to ask?

[h/t Sadly, No!]

YALLER DOG DEMOCRAT

2006-11-28T16:15:00.000-06:00

As some of you may know already, I recently set upon a quest to determine the origin of the term above. I posted my findings on Wikipedia. Having never edited Wikipedia before, I elicited and received some assistance and now my full edits are under the headings of Etymology and History and Usage in the post. If you'd like to check it out, go here.

Patton's Plan (A Parody)

2006-11-28T15:03:00.001-06:00

Check out this great vid!

THIS GOVERNMENT DOES NOT WORK

2006-11-28T08:18:00.000-06:00

Conservative Grover Norquist once said, "My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub." No fan of government is he. In his and other conservatives' minds, no good comes from the government. In short, their position is that government does not work. And apparently the final days of the Republican-held Congress seem intent on proving this point as they have chosen not to work. Instead, they have chosen to forgo their actual legislative responsibilities and dump about a half-trillion (yes, that's Trillion) dollars in spending bills for the incoming Democratic majority to deal with.

[Incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid's office has been alerted by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist that Republicans have decided to pass another stopgap spending measure when they return to Washington next month and leave the rest of the budget work needed to fund the government next year to the Democrats, said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Reid.

...

Such a move would leave the new Democratic majority with the responsibility to pass the nine remaining spending bills, totaling almost $500 billion for government programs ranging from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to the national parks.

It also would complicate Democrats' plans to focus on their issues such as raising the minimum wage, lifting restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research and cutting interest rates on student loans when they take control of both the House and Senate in January.
...
Manley called the Republican action an abdication of responsibility.

``This is only the latest example of why the American people rejected this do-nothing Congress at the ballot box earlier this month,'' he said.

Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), in keeping with the wave of bipartisan fellowship that is sweeping through Washington these days stated, “I know a lot of folks just as soon not to see them done this year and let the Democrats struggle here next year.”

Yes, that was Saxby Chambliss, again demonstrating why the GOP was swept from office this past November as they once again choose partisan politics over actually doing the work that the American people put them there to do.

[h/t Think Progress]

EMBRACING REALITY

2006-11-27T16:32:00.000-06:00

Kudos to NBC News and MSNBC (the same organ) for embracing reality by calling a duck a duck today. They are to date the only news organization to stand up and tell their viewers that the nightmare in Iraq is exactly what the general public has thought it is for some time now; namely a civil war.

The news from Iraq is becoming grimmer every day. Over the long holiday weekend bombings killed more than 200 people in a Shiite neighborhood in Baghdad. And six Sunni men were doused with kerosene and burned alive. Shiite muslims are the majority, but Sunnis like Saddam Hussein ruled that country until the war. Now, the battle between Shiites and Sunnis has created a civil war in Iraq. Beginning this morning, MSNBC will refer to the fighting in Iraq as a civil war — a phrase the White House continues to resist. But after careful thought, MSNBC and NBC News decided over the weekend, the terminology is appropriate, as armed militarized factions fight for their own political agendas.

The other news organizations however insist on doing verbal calisthenics when speaking of the Iraq civil war. It's almost funny the iterations the news organizations come up with, including the regular "sectarian violence," "snowballing sectarian violence," "sectarian slaughter," "widening sectarian war," and "sectarian strife". Then there are some other outlets who continue to claim that while there's not a civil war going on in Iraq, one could certainly be on the way like the Washington Post's "... closer to full-blown civil war...," and the Chicago Tribune's "... the prospect of civil war in Iraq festers...".

So instead of nutting up and calling a spade a spade, the majority of television and print media continue to toe the White House line and come up with new and clever ways to describe the CIVIL WAR that rages in Iraq. We as a nation cannot address the problem if the problem itself cannot be properly identified. Just because Bush cannot come to grips with the hell on earth he has unleashed (in the name of WMDs or spreading democracy or freeing the Iraqis from Saddam or whatever reason of the week Bush is using to justify this folly) doesn't mean the American people are incapable of embracing this awful reality.

UPDATE: A writer with the Washington Post explains why they do not label the ongoing and worsening sectarian violence in Iraq a civil war - because the leaders in Iraq do not call it a civil war. As Think Progress notes, "Government officials in Iraq have a direct interest in avoiding the characterization of violence there as a civil war. The Washington Post’s job is not to act as stenographers for officials in positions of power, but rather to report facts as they exist on the ground."

And the fall of a once great newspaper continues...

YOU CANNOT MAKE THIS STUFF UP

2006-11-27T11:59:00.000-06:00

Sometimes you read things online and they just sound so preposterous on their face as to seem impossible. Then you remember that the subject in question has to do with George W. Bush and you realize that in matters where he's involved, the impossible is quite likely. Take for instance the plans for his presidential library/public relations firm.

He may be a certified lame duck now, but President Bush and his truest believers are about to launch their final campaign - an eye-popping, half-billion-dollar drive for the Bush presidential library.
Eager to begin refurbishing his tattered legacy, the President hopes to raise $500 million to build his library and a think tank at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. Bush lived in Dallas until he was elected governor of Texas in 1995.
Bush sources with direct knowledge of library plans told the Daily News that SMU and Bush fund-raisers hope to get half of the half billion from what they call "megadonations" of $10 million to $20 million a pop.
Bush loyalists have already identified wealthy heiresses, Arab nations and captains of industry as potential "mega" donors and are pressing for a formal site announcement - now expected early in the new year.
...
"It's a stretch," said another source briefed on the plans. "It's so much bigger than anything that's been tried before. But the more you have, the more influence [on history] you can exert."
The half-billion target is double what Bush raised for his 2004 reelection and dwarfs the funding of other presidential libraries. But Bush partisans are determined to have a massive pile of endowment cash to spread the gospel of a presidency that for now gets poor marks from many scholars and a majority of Americans.
The legacy-polishing centerpiece is an institute, which several Bush insiders called the Institute for Democracy. Patterned after Stanford University's Hoover Institution, Bush's institute will hire conservative scholars and "give them money to write papers and books favorable to the President's policies," one Bush insider said.

When all is said and done, I suppose that it is only fitting that this presidential library be a monument to influencing public opinion, given that this administration has always prided itself on looking busy rather than actually doing the hard work of governance. That fact that it will be financed by wealthy interests (including Arab money) also seems oddly appropriate considering all he's done for the huddled rich masses these past eight years.

I recall during the waning months of the Clinton presidency, when President Clinton worked tirelessly to reach some sort of accord with the Palestinians and the Israelis to facilitate a lasting peace in the area, confident that such an accomplishment would reflect well on his overall legacy. Bush on the other hand holds no such lofty ideals; instead he wants to have complimentary things written about him because he's paying people to do so as opposed to actually doing the hard work to earn such accolades.

I suppose my only question is, if you spend half a billion dollars to polish up a turd, don't you still just end up with a shiny turd?

WHERE'S O'REILLY WHEN YOU NEED HIM?

2006-11-27T07:35:00.000-06:00

Quickly, someone notify Bill "Culture Warrior" O'Reilly! Head to the commissioner's office and tilt back the head of the bust and press the button so that the signal will go out to the Bill-O cave. Then O'Reilly, our nation's staunchest defender of the rights of Christmas, can come running, ready to assist in this most egregious of ~~holiday~~ Christmas attacks.

Specifically, a woman in a southwestern Colorado subdivision has displayed a Christmas wreath on her home that incorporates a peace symbol. She is being fined $25 a day because of it. Yes, during the season that is meant to honor the birth the Lord our God, Jesus Christ himself, Mr. Prince of PEACE by the way, a woman is being harassed and bullied for displaying this decidedly un-Christian symbol on her home.

A homeowners association in southwestern Colorado has threatened to fine a resident $25 a day until she removes a Christmas wreath with a peace sign that some say is an anti-Iraq war protest or a symbol of Satan.
Some residents who have complained have children serving in Iraq, said Bob Kearns, president of the Loma Linda Homeowners Association in Pagosa Springs. He said some residents have also believed it was a symbol of Satan. Three or four residents complained, he said.

Alright, I'm beyond confused at this point. A woman displays a symbol expressing her desire for peace and the people who would most benefit from that peace, namely the families of the men and women who are dying in Iraq, are raising a stink. During the season of "peace on Earth and goodwill towards men" a couple of families get all knee-jerk over their belief that being against the war must by definition mean being against the troops. And don't even get me starting with the Satanic symbology nonsense - someone's been watching the Da Vinci Code just a little too much; step away from the DVD player, people. And even if the symbol were satanically motivated, don't we have that whole freedom of religion thing? Not here.

The association in this 200-home subdivision 270 miles southwest of Denver has sent a letter to her saying that residents were offended by the sign and the board "will not allow signs, flags etc. that can be considered divisive."

The subdivision's rules say no signs, billboards or advertising are permitted without the consent of the architectural control committee.

Kearns ordered the committee to require Jensen to remove the wreath, but members refused after concluding that it was merely a seasonal symbol that didn't say anything. Kearns fired all five committee members.

Nothing that "can be considered divisive" can be displayed. Um, isn't that just about EVERYTHING!!! What if a person is offended by a Jewish family with a menorah in the window? What if a person dislikes a neighbor's plastic nativity display? How about a complaint over the tackiness of a lawn filled with an overabundance of lighted deer and other woodland creatures? Given the way the bylaws are written, anything could be viewed as objectionable or divisive, but to take offense of a symbol of peace during this season of honoring the Prince of Peace Himself is beyond absurd. Remember, nitwits - wishing for peace does not equal crapping on your sons and daughters who are unfortunate enough to be stuck in Iraq rather than with their loved ones (read: YOU) this holiday season.

If ever there was a salvo in O'Reilly's manufactured "War on Christmas" this certainly would qualify. I demand an immediate investigation by Bill-O into this horrendous attack. Rage RAGE against the dying of the wreath!!

UPDATE: The Kearn guy resigned and the woman received an apology and will not have to pay any fine. Good for her. Sanity returns to a small corner of the world.

STRONG WORDS

2006-11-26T20:34:00.000-06:00

Wow, don't sugarcoat it or anything, huh? Former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinksi had some choice words for the war in Iraq and the upcoming Baker Commission report. Appearing on CNN this past Sunday, he had this to say:

BRZEZINSKI: [...] But the point to understand is that if you undertake a historically mistaken adventure, the longer you stick with it, the higher the cost you pay for it.

BLITZER: You’re making the comparison to Vietnam.

BRZEZINSKI: Yes, our — or to Algeria. And when Henry says that the Baker commission is going to help us resolve it, I think that’s an illusion. The Baker commission will probably come out with some sound advice on dealing with the neighborhood, with Iran, with the Israeli- Palestinian issues, which is relevant but essentially will offer some procrastination ideas for dealing with the crisis.

The fact of the matter is, the undertaking itself is fundamentally wrong-headed. And I’ve been arguing this on your program with Henry for the last three years. And I invite viewers to go on the Internet and look what we have been saying, respectively.

This is a mistaken, absolutely historically wrong undertaking. The costs are prohibitive. If we get out sooner, there will be a messy follow-up after we leave. It will be messy, but will not be as messy as if we stay, seeking to win in some fashion.

I FIND YOUR LACK OF FUNNINESS DISTURBING

2006-11-25T19:41:00.000-06:00

Perhaps it's the copious amounts of eggnog I've ingested tonight while decorating the Christmas tree that have clouded my judgment, but I thought that I'd share this non-laughfest with my faithful readers (readers who will no doubt leave and never return after viewing the video below).

For those not aware, Fox News is planning a "conservative-centric" answer to The Daily Show called This Just In. I believe that it will fail and fail spectacularly. The beauty of The Daily Show is that it does not lampoon Republicans and conservatives exclusively; they do no shy away from smacking around a Democrat for saying or doing something boneheaded or hypocritical. And this is a point that conservatives and Fox News simply fail to understand. The Daily Show does not pander and curry favor with a particular political segment; the fact that a particular politcal segment finds them more humorous than others might is more a byproduct of intelligent satire and not necessarily a conscious effort to kiss ass. On the other hand, Fox News' sole reason for existing is to pander and curry favor with Republicans and the White House. Is it really that much of a stretch for a network that shills all things GOP might also attempt to put on an ostensibly comical program that would also pander and shill Republican talking points?

Anyway, the video below is more than likely representative of what a viewer to This Just In may be in for. The fairly illustrative of just how unfunny conservatives are, so without further ado, I bring you the stylings of The America Show:

If you were able to make it through the whole thing, bless you. If not, then you're smarter than I am. Either way, I beg the viewers' forgiveness for posting it. Now, forgive me while I go wash my brain out with ... well, whatever it'll take to make me forget about what I just viewed. Where the hell's my eggnog?!

BACK UP THE BUS - Donald Rumsfeld

2006-11-25T18:42:00.000-06:00

Now that war criminal Donald Rumsfeld has been unceremoniously shown the door, the piling on has begun in earnest. Conveniently enough, information has recently surfaced that Rumsfeld himself authorized the inhuman treatment of detainees of Abu Ghraib prison.

Former U.S. Army Brigadier General Janis Karpinski told Spain's El Pais newspaper she had seen a letter apparently signed by Rumsfeld which allowed civilian contractors to use techniques such as sleep deprivation during interrogation.

Karpinski, who ran the prison until early 2004, said she saw a memorandum signed by Rumsfeld detailing the use of harsh interrogation methods.

"The handwritten signature was above his printed name and in the same handwriting in the margin was written: "Make sure this is accomplished,"" she told Saturday's El Pais.

"The methods consisted of making prisoners stand for long periods, sleep deprivation ... playing music at full volume, having to sit in uncomfortably ... Rumsfeld authorized these specific techniques."

The Geneva Convention says prisoners of war should suffer "no physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion" to secure information.

"Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind," the document states.
...

Rumsfeld also authorized the army to break the Geneva Conventions by not registering all prisoners, Karpinski said, explaining how she raised the case of one unregistered inmate with an aide to former U.S. commander Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez.

"We received a message from the Pentagon, from the Defense Secretary, ordering us to hold the prisoner without registering him. I now know this happened on various occasions."

Of course, this information might have proved slightly more useful a couple of years ago when the original offenses occurred, but I suppose it's never to late for this to come out. After all, anything that so blatantly illustrates how morally bankrupt those under Bush's employ are cannot be a bad thing by their very definition. Though given the way Bush operates, I see a Medal of Freedom in his future, given the heckuva job he's done (see: George "Slam Dunk" Tenet).

AND SO IT GOES...

2006-11-25T16:28:00.000-06:00

The imaginary reality that is Bushieland continues unabated, despite the hard reality to the contrary repeatedly smacking the true believers upside their slow little heads.

Scott Stanzel, a White House spokesman, also repeated the administration’s insistence that Iraq was not in a civil war. “We’re constantly asked that question, and while the situation is serious, Prime Minister Maliki and President Talabani have said they do not believe it is a civil war,” he said.

So, if Maliki and Talabani say so, then everything must be going well; after all, they live in Baghdad, so they've got firsthand knowledge, right?

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, firstly, let me say, perhaps it's easier to deny that this is a civil war, when essentially you live in the most heavily fortified place in the country within the Green Zone, which is true of both the prime minister, the national security adviser for Iraq and, of course, the top U.S. military commanders. However, for the people living on the streets, for Iraqis in their homes, if this is not civil war, or a form of it, then they do not want to see what one really looks like.

...

I mean, if this is not civil war, where there is, on average, 40 to 50 tortured, mutilated, executed bodies showing up on the capital streets each morning, where we have thousands of unaccounted for dead bodies mounting up every month, and where the list of those who have simply disappeared for the sake of the fact that they have the wrong name, a name that is either Sunni or Shia, so much so that we have people getting dual identity cards, where parents cannot send their children to school, because they have to cross a sectarian line, then, goodness, me, I don't want to see what a civil war looks like either if this isn't one.

In the upside-down world of Bushieland, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's definitely not a duck because, well they say it's not a duck. I guess.

(h/t Daily Kos)

BLAME DEMOCRATS

2006-11-24T18:16:00.000-06:00

I personally will rarely link-pimp as I'd rather have those fortunate souls who have find America's Least Wanted to actually stick and around and read stuff here. That being said, Glenn Greenwald has an excellent analysis of the GOP game of blaming violence on Iraq on the terrorists' desire to influence the elections here. Not simply wanted to spoil the ending, I encourage people to go check him out, but for those not so inclinded, his conclusion:

So, to recap: when insurgents engage in violence before the elections, that's the fault of Democrats because it's done to help them win (and credit to Republicans because it shows how tough they are on The Terrorists). When the insurgents engage in violence after the elections, that's also the fault of Democrats because they are excited by the Democrats' success (and credit to Republicans because Republicans want to stay forever, which makes the insurgents sad and listless). And when there is no violence, all credit to Republicans because it shows how great their war plan is.

Put another way, no matter what happens in Iraq (violence increases, violence decreases), and no matter when it happens (before the election, after the election), it is the fault of Democrats and it reflects well on the Republicans. Isn't it fair to say that that's the very definition of the mindset of a cultist?

What an interesting world it must be for a koolaid-drinking believer.

ALL RIGHT, WE GET IT! Mitt Romney

2006-11-23T08:47:00.000-06:00

Outgoing Massachusetts governor and likely presidential nominee Mitt Romney wants to make one thing perfectly clear - he hates gays. That's basically the only conclusion I can come to after Mitt spent the past few days all but wearing a sandwich board proclaiming his hatred of all things gay.
First up "gay = bad" crusade was the revelation that Romney will ask the state's highest court to order a ballot question on same-sex marriage if legislators fail to vote on the matter when they reconvene in January.

Romney said he will ask a justice of the state's Supreme Judicial Court to direct the secretary of state to place the question on the ballot if lawmakers do not vote directly on the question Jan. 2, the final day of the current session. Romney's term as governor expires Jan. 4.
The legislature is in recess and, because it did not adjourn, Romney has no legal authority to call legislators back into session.
Romney, an opponent of same-sex marriage, made his announcement to the cheers of hundreds of same-sex-marriage opponents at a rally on the Statehouse steps. A counter-protest was held across the street.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in November 2003 that same-sex marriages are legal. Since then, more than 8,000 gay couples have tied the knot in the state.

Yes, faithful readers, gay couples have had the right to marry for three years now and there has not been a single report of a civilization-ending flood or fire come to wipe the unholy land of Massachusetts off the globe. And no, there's been no enormous hole opening up underneath Boston either to swallow our modern day Sodom and Gamorra. Yet there's Mitt, out there like some deranged nitwit holding up his metaphorical "The End is Near" sign.

Of course, Romney isn't satisfied with simply stripping gays of their civil rights; now he's hoping to up the suicide rate among gay teens. At least, that's what it looks like to me when he decided to cut funding to gay youth suicide prevention programs.

Last week Bay Windows reported that Gov. Mitt Romney’s $425 million in budget cuts announced this month included extensive cuts to HIV/AIDS and LGBT-related programs, but that the extent of those cuts was not completely known. One of the question marks was the Department of Public Health’s (DPH) Supportive and Healthy Communities for Gay and Lesbian Youth (SHCGLY) programming aimed at reducing LGBT youth suicide, which had originally been allocated $350,000 for the Fiscal Year 2007 (FY07). Kathleen Henry, chair of the Massachusetts Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, said this week the commission has learned that the cuts will include $100,000 from the SHCGLY program budget.

...

“[Those cuts] coupled with the events over the weekend about ‘letting the people vote,’ that whole issue, it certainly seems like our community is being used as some kind of target practice for future political ambitions,” said Henry, referring to Romney’s Nov. 19 rally at the State House in support of an amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

Hmmm, methinks Ms. Henry may be onto something there. An outgoing governor is doing everything he possibly can to wring every last bit of gay hate out of his agenda before leaving office January 4 by rehashing what is to many people a dead issue while also cutting funding to social programs primarily beneficial to gays. I think about the only other thing he could do to convince the anti-gay voters in the coming primaries of his sincerity to their plight is to actually start lighting random gay people on fire. Of course, I probably shouldn't be giving a hatemonger like Mitt such ideas. I know it's far to early to make too many predictions about the upcoming presidential primaries, but I think Romney's got the "I hate gays" voters locked up. Either that, or the other GOP contenders have got a lot of ground to make up if they hope to court this crucial swing vote.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING

2006-11-23T06:35:00.000-06:00

Just wanted to say a quck Happy Turkey Day. I'm being all cliched this year and am packing up the car so the family and I can go over the river and through the woods to grandmother's house in New Orleans. Well, technically we're seeing two grandmothers (at least Gracie is, neither my wife or I have living grandparents) - first my family and then my wife's family in the evening. Hey, just as long as it doesn't interupt my football viewing I'll be fine.

Well, I gotta go pack up the car, so click over and enjoy a little funny, courtesy of the Seattle PI.

OWNER BEWARE - CHRIS SHAYS

2006-11-22T16:24:00.000-06:00

Recently congressman Chris Shays (R-CT) made the claim that now that the Democrats have now won control of both houses of Congress, they now "own" Iraq as much as Bush does. When he says Dems own it, it means that Democrats must now share the blame with all that has gone wrong in Iraq. Forgetting for just one moment that the Democrats will not even take over control of the Congress until the beginning of next year, how exactly does Shays arrive at this conclusion? Was it not the Democratic Party who has demanded numerous investigations into various aspects of Iraq, from faulty intelligence, to a lack of an occupation plan, to the failure to properly equip our troops for combat? Wass it not the Democratic Party who has demanded that the GOP-controlled Congress excercise their Constitutionally mandated role of oversight of the executive branch? And was it not the Democratic Party that was rebuffed and ridiculed at every turn by the Bush administration and the GOP who never missed an opportunity to call us cut-and-runners and defeat-o-crats and not serious about the war on terror?
So, with all that, how exactly is the Democratic Party now in bed with Bush's Iraq debacle? Can we at least take a look at the car you claim we own before we get the bill for the repairs caused by Bush's reckless driving?

CALLING OUT THE CHICKENHAWKS - LAWRENCE O'DONNELL

2006-11-22T14:08:00.000-06:00

Lawrence O'Donnell has been on a tear recently. Namely, he's tired of all those talking heads who advocated (and continue to advocate) the war in Iraq yet have never once lifted a gun and stood a post. His recent appearance on Joe Scarborough's MSNBC show was the stuff of legend (despite Scarborough's inability to comprehend O'Donnell's point) and now his ranting continues over on Huffington Post:

[Incoming House Ways and Means committee chairman Charlie] Rangel [D-NY] announced on Sunday that he wants to reinstate the draft. He said the same thing a few years ago but quickly let on that he wasn't serious. He's playing it straight this time and has already introduced a bill. Local New York TV news has given Rangel saturation coverage. You can see his anger and frustration building each time he answers another reporter's question about the draft. The point he keeps repeating is: "There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way."

...

Advocating war is easier when you and your family are not endangered by it. I've reached a Rangel-like breaking point with my TV pundit colleagues who championed the Iraq war and now say we can't leave even if we went there for the wrong reasons. For every one of them, I have a simple question: Why aren't you in Iraq? Or why did you avoid combat in your generation's war? The one unifying characteristic that all of us men in make-up on political chat shows share is fear of combat. Every one of us has done everything we can to avoid combat or even being fitted for a military uniform. Just like George Bush, Bill Clinton, and Dick Cheney, we are all combat cowards. It takes a very special kind of combat coward to advocate combat for others. It's the kind of thing that can get you as angry as Charlie Rangel.

Though I am probably past the age of acceptability for a draft (alright, I'm not that old, but like Indiana Jones said, 'It's not the years, it's the mileage,' so figure the Army'd take one look at me and laugh me out the door), I would consider supporting Rangel's (futile) move, because he and O'Donnell certainly have a point. After all, how many members of Congress or the Bush administration have family members serving overseas in Iraq? It's easy to ask someone else to stand in harm's way for your freedom; try sending a loved one.

2006-11-22T10:14:00.000-06:00

ON THIS DAY

I'd like to take a moment to acknowledge and commemorate in my own small way, the anniversary of the death of the first President I loved, John Fitzgerald Kennedy. I was a child of age...ok, lets say I was a very, very small child, but I remember him. My parents, and my Irish grandmother adored him and that made him very God-like and all powerful to me.

I can very faintly remember the Cuban missile crisis. I didn't know what was going on, of course, but I remember a few very tense days in my little family circle when my parents would sit around the kitchen table in our small post-war house they had built. I heard the stress in their voices as they talked with my other relatives and their friends who visited. And I remember the joy and relief when President Kennedy brought our country through that deadly, perilous time. The bourbon flowed in the South. I remember because it was so rare to see everyone celebrate in such a way.

I remember the shock of the assassination in the reactions of my parents, especially since my oldest sister had just brought home her newborn, my first niece. It should have been a happy time, but it was tinged with sorrow. I didn't realize what had happened exactly until I watched the funeral on the TV. I remember I was wearing a frilly white dress and patent leather maryjanes. I remember John-John saluting the coffin and I cried. We all cried.

I pray that mercy and justice will bring this country another great man, like John F. Kennedy, to lead us in a new direction. We need him.

2006-11-22T07:08:00.000-06:00

BARBARA BUSH ROBBED

The Secret Service failed to protect the daughter of the President from being robbed in Argentina at a crowded restaurant. Barbara was dining with Jenna in Buenos Aires, where they have been for about 3 weeks. Despite being surrounded by Secret Service agents, her purse was stolen.

Yes, I'm telling you that between the CIA, the Secret Service, the FBI and the rest of the intelligence community, we're all screwed. God knows, I'm no fan, but these are the daughter's of the President of our country. You'd think at this time, with all that is happening and nearly on the day of the anniversary of our last assassinated President, the great tradition of the Secret Service would ensure that they would be hyper-vigilent, wouldn't you?

UPDATE: I've checked the CNN newscast and website and not one word can I find on this. How is it that the BBC has the story and not the U.S. media? What does that tell us about the MSM in the U.S.? Are their heads totally up their asses or are they just owned lock, stock and barrel and willfully and wrongfully attempting to keep information from the American people?

2006-11-22T03:56:00.000-06:00

CHIMERA

Truthdig has a great interview with Gore Vidal up, so go check it out. Here is a sample:

'There are a few crazies who want to cheer the flag and this yappy little terrier as though he were a real president. Well, he’s not a real president. He’s a thing, a chimera who was put together by the Supreme Court, first time around, and reelected by, uh, Diebold, Sequoia and some other interested parties. Everybody knows he isn’t there. Or what is there isn’t for us—it’s not our president. We do have a real, uh, a shadow president in Vice President Cheney, whose wife is a famous novelist given to tales of unnatural love… . '

FUN WITH PHONES

2006-11-21T22:26:00.000-06:00

Continuing my non-political posting, I wanted to mention that I just bought a new cell phone that I'm really digging. It's the Motorola SLVR. It's an iTunes phone so that's a nifty feature (alright, it's the main feature I bought it for; I have no idea why I'm such a gadget junkie). It's got the Bluetooth thing going on in addition to other bells and whistles. Unfortunately I still have to do the whole phone number transferral as this is a Cingular exclusive phone and my current carrier is Verizon.

It's what they call a "candy bar" phone in that it's not a flip phone or one of those slider phones (which I cannot stand for some reason). It's about a 1/4" thick so it'll slide right into my pocket and relieve me the need to wear the thing on my belt, which I've long since grown tired of.

Can someone explain this to me - I went into the Cingular store and their price was about $200. Add to the fact that I needed to get my wife a new phone since we're on one of those family plans and that would have jacked up the price even more at the Cingular store - to the tune of $100 (she got one of those RAZRs). Boom, $300 right there and that's with the new customer discount (I'm sure they probably had some sort of rebate but that requires additional work on my part).

I check out Best Buy and I can get the my phone for $50 and my wife's phone for FREE. So, $300 or $50. I took the latter. The only downside I can see at this point is that I'll have to go to the Cingular store in order to get them to "port" my old number over, which I guess isn't that big of a deal. Can someone explain why the actual store would have such high prices for the same phones I can get much cheaper at Best Buy? Is it some sort of big box store discount like Wal-Mart benefits from? Just curious.

Anyway, the phone's really sharp. I've got it playing, sans earpiece, right now and the built-in speaker is pretty good. Of course, it sounds even better with an earpiece. It took me about 10 minutes to upload about 30 songs (my computer crashed earlier this year taking much of my 200+ song music collection with it), which is enough for right now.

So for anyone even remotely interested, and in the spirit of overly inquisitive reporters to politicians, I give you a sample of what's on my iPod. Right now, I've got some Stones playing (Sympathy for the Devil); a handful of U2 songs (much Joshua Tree), some Johnny Cash (mostly covers he did - One, Hurt, Personal Jesus) and a single apiece from Foo Fighters, Pearl Jam and Dixie Chicks, among several others. One of my personal favorites is by The Offspring called Spare Me the Details. Track it down; freaking hilarious.

Anyway, thanks for sticking with me on my meandering and pointless post. I think I've got some early holiday lethargy. I'm sure before we all know it, we'll be back in the thick of some partisan battle, but for now a break isn't a bad thing. To paraphrase, all politics and no fun make Paul a something something (thank you, Homer).

POSITIVE VISUALIZATION - Newt Gingrich

2006-11-21T16:25:00.000-06:00

Continuing my mad obsession with all things Prez '08, I bring you the comedy stylings of Newt Gingrich. Until now, it was only speculation that he would make a run for his party's nomination. Now, he's working on the plan; nay, not a plan, rather a movement that will become so powerful that he will have no choice but to acquiese to the will of the people and simply become president.

"I am not 'running' for president. I am seeking to create a movement to win the future by offering a series of solutions so compelling that if the American people say I have to be president, it will happen."

Maybe I'm just picking at semantics here, but it's just such an odd way of courting voters. It's sort of like a bizarro version of LBJ's decision not to run in 1968: 'I'm not asking for your vote, but if chosen by the solemn and unsolicited approval of my legions of loving followers, I will humbly accept the post.'

As Shelly Lewis reminds us, Newt's list of offenses is an extensive one, including

[...] the ethics issues, the creation of the sleazy, bullying Republican revolving-door lobbyist system now known as the K street project, and the pouty government shutdown he orchestrated in a losing battle with Bill Clinton[.]

With a resume like that, let's hope that people do not find his amazing panaceas all that compelling so that we can continue to consign him to the dustbin of history.

FUN WITH FIREFOX

2006-11-21T14:40:00.000-06:00

While this has nothing to do with politics, I thought I'd share anyway.

After months of it staring me in the face, I finally decided to take the plunge into Firefox. I'm an IE guy, specifically IE6 and I'm a real creature of habit abut such things. IE6 allowed me to customize a very unobtrusive navbar that maximized my screenview without a bunch of unnecessary buttons and such. But with the advent of IE7, I felt that it might be time to make a switch. But instead of IE7 I went ahead and checked out Firefox (which 35% of my visitors here use [50% use IE6]). Overall, I'm fairly satisfied. It's customizable (though not as much as I want) and of course, there's the whole "tabs" thing. Within a month's time, I'm going to wonder how the heck I ever lived without tabs. I have a widescreen monitor (1680 x 1050) with ample space on my taskbar to display many windows, but by utilizing tabs it makes everything so much easier. I can have one window with tabs for blogger, this blog and the counter; one window for about six-eight different blogs that I monitor and another window for a couple of email programs I use. So instead of 10-12 open windows, I've got three - very smooth. Me likey.
So, is there anything else I'm missing as far as nifty tools in Firefox?

GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT

2006-11-21T09:14:00.000-06:00

I have not posted on this as it has little to do with politics, but I thought that I'd give a rare pat on the back to Rupert Murdoch and Fox for pulling the offensive OJ Simpson book and interview. Nothing good would have come from any of it and the three families that were affected so tragically by Simpson's double murders deserve better than to have Simpson sit in front of a camera and wink at the world knowing that he got away with nearly decaptitating his ex-wife and slaughtering her friend. His actions have left his children without a mother and a father who ended her life. Simpson's actions left a distraught family without a beloved daughter and sister and another family without a son and brother. To give Simpson a pulpit to spew his theories on how he would/did kill two innocent people would have been the quite possibly the lowest descent television would have ever been witness to.
Murdoch's statement is as follows: "I and senior management agreee with the American public that this was an ill-considered project. We are sorry for any pain that this has caused the families of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson."

Ill advised, huh? Ya think!? Can you imagine if this had taken place. There's the double-murderer Simpson sitting there and conjecturing on how he would have killed these two people "if" he had done it - so basically this book would have been a tell-all. Dear lord, but the man has two children by this slain woman! Can you imagine the conversation between the children and their father. "Hey kids. I'm writing a book and doing an interview where I'll talk about how I would have killed your mommy. Doesn't that sound great?" "Offensive" just doesn't quite describe just how dispicable such a spectacle would prove.

As Eugene Robinson wrote in an Op-Ed for the Washington Post:

Only a narcissist of the first order would be compelled to revisit the scene of the crime and walk us through the butchery, knowing that no one would take his use of "if" or "would have" as anything but a mocking formality -- knowing that everyone would read the book as a true confession of his sins. Only a textbook narcissist would have such a warped need to bask once again in the limelight.

Thankfully, Murdoch has proven not to be utterly and completely tone deaf to the public outrage that was growing throughout the country. Murdoch may be many things, but I believe him to be a businessman first and foremost. And this Simpson pollution was bad business.

HERE, SIR, ENDETH THE LESSON

2006-11-20T23:39:00.000-06:00

Keith Olbermann was at it again last night, and by "at it" I mean metaphorically beating the hell out of George W. Bush on his idiocy/lunacy, specifically as it refers to Bush's recent trip to Vietnam (his first EVER, by the way). Olbermann took exception to Bush's recent comment about any lessons we learned in Vietnam as they relate to Iraq. Bush's comment:

"One lesson is that we tend to want there to be instant success in the world, and the task in Iraq is going to take a while."

"We'll succeed, unless we quit."

At which Olbermann removed himself to behind the woodshed and proceeded with the beatdown:

The primary one — which should be as obvious to you as the latest opinion poll showing that only 31 percent of this country agrees with your tragic Iraq policy– is that if you try to pursue a war for which the nation has lost its stomach, you and it are finished. Ask Lyndon Johnson.

The second most important lesson of Vietnam, Mr. Bush: if you don't have a stable local government to work with, you can keep sending in Americans until hell freezes over and it will not matter. Ask South Vietnam's President Diem, or President Thieu.

The third vital lesson of Vietnam, Mr. Bush: don't pretend it's something it's not. For decades we were warned that if we didn't stop "communist aggression" in Vietnam, communist agitators would infiltrate and devour the small nations of the world, and make their insidious way, stealthily, to our doorstep.

...

This president has his fictitious Iraqi W-M-D, and his lies (disguised as subtle hints) linking Saddam Hussein to 9/11, and his reason-of-the-week for keeping us there when all the evidence has, for at least three years, told us we needed to get as many of our kids out, as quickly as we could.

That president [Lyndon Johnson] had his fictitious attacks on Navy ships in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964, and the next thing any of us knew, the Senate had voted 88-to-2 to approve the blank check with which Lyndon Johnson paid for our trip into hell.

And then, my favorite passage:

The Domino Theory was nonsense, sir. Our departure from Vietnam emboldened no one. Communism did not spread like a contagion around the world.

And most importantly — as President Reagan's Assistant Secretary of State Lawrence Korb said on this newscast Friday — we were only in a position to win the Cold War because we quit in Vietnam.

We went home. And instead it was the Russians who learned nothing from Vietnam, and who repeated every one of our mistakes when they went into Afghanistan. And alienated their own people, and killed their own children, and bankrupted their own economy, and allowed us to win the Cold War.

This is basically an encapsulation of everything level-headed (read: non-neoconservatives) people have been claiming for years - the war in Iraq has distracted us from your beloved war on terror, and has in fact made the latter war almost impossible to win. As has been said, our presense in Iraq has done more to recruit would-be terrorists than anything Osama bin Laden could have said or done. The world is a more dangerous place, and it is because you fail to grasp the historical significance of what you have done to this nation. You may be weakened by your party's loss of Congress but you daily demonstrate just how dangerous you are to the world.

C&L has video and a full transcript.

AMERICA'S DOWNFALL - Bill O'Reilly

2006-11-20T15:56:00.000-06:00

Bill O'Reilly attempted a rare triple play during a recent radio broadcast. In order, he disparaged American's fascination with iPods and technology, computer "geeks", and the combat preparedness of average Americans. Don't believe me [h/t Think Progress]?

[1] I don’t own an iPod. I would never wear an iPod… If this is your primary focus in life - the machines… it’s going to have a staggeringly negative effect, all of this, for America…

[2] [D]id you ever talk to these computer geeks? I mean, can you carry on a conversation with them? …

[3] I really fear for the United States because, believe me, the jihadists? They’re not playing the video games. They’re killing real people over there.

I, like millions of Americans, am an iPod owner. I recall the days of the Walkman, and I'll take my small iPod Shuffle over that big honkin' yellow cassette player anyday of the week. And while I'll admit that it is not the primary focus of my life, I do find it handy while cutting the grass or riding the subway the couple times of year I find myself doing so. It seems that on my all too frequent journeys to New York that everyone seems to have the white earpieces in their ears listening to their own personal soundtracks. Whether this is having a "staggeringly negative effect" on America seems a bit of a reach.

Next, he takes the swipe at computer "geeks"? Why? Is that some remnant of his younger days as a bully or something? What's the point really? And his query, "I mean, can you carry on a conversation with them?" would be applicable to the majority of his audience in my mind.

Finally we have the jihadist remark? So, while Americans are playing video games, the jihadists are killing people; is he suggesting that we put down our controllers and start killing people as well in order to prepare for the coming apocalyptic conflagration when our skills at hand-to-hand combat against these devil worshippers will finally be put to the test? He really stumped me with this one. Then again, perhaps we should provide the jihadists with video games and maybe that will stip them from killing people since they would then have something else to do with their time.

Bill-O really stumped me with this rant. Maybe he's choosing to forgo his annual war on Christmas diatribes and is instead focusing on the laziness of Americans (and the awkward social skills of computer geeks) who ought to be practicing the art of jihad rather than cuddling up with our iPods and Xboxes.

NOTE TO SELF: STOP OBSESSING

2006-11-20T08:00:00.000-06:00

Anonymous Liberal, guest blogging over at The Carpetbagger Report, splashed some metaphorical cold water on my face yesterday as he gave a look at some early 2008 presidential polling. As I've noted numerous times, I enjoy the early polls and straw polls especially. No rhyme or reason I suppose; I guess I just enjoy the hazy look into the future they can provide. Well, AL is having none of it.

The basis for his disdain is a new Pew poll out with its early frontrunners:

Republicans
Rudy Giuliani……….27%
John McCain……….26%
Condoleeza Rice…..21%
Mitt Romney………..7%
Newt Gingrinch…….6%

Democrats
Hillary Clinton……..39%
Barack Obama…….23%
John Edwards……..10%
Al Gore…………….10%
John Kerry…………7%

So what does this mean? Is Hillary a lock? Is Giuliani in the driver’s seat? No and no.The bottomline is this: these polls are all but meaningless. Perhaps nothing illustrates this point better than looking back at polls from this point in the last election cycle. For example, a Fox News poll conducted in January of 2003 (which was closer to the election than we are now) reported the following results:

Joe Lieberman……29%
Dick Gephardt……15%
John Kerry………..13%
John Edwards…….8%
Al Sharpton……….5%
Howard Dean……..2%

In fact, throughout 2002 and much of 2003, Joe Lieberman led in virtually every poll. Did that mean that Lieberman had some deep base of support among Democratic primary voters? Of course not. All this reflected was the fact that Lieberman had the highest name recognition of anyone in the field by virtue of his status as the Vice Presidential candidate in 2000.

...

Take Rudy Giuliani, for example. He polls well because most people know who he is. But I suspect most Republican voters don’t know very much about the guy, and the more they learn, the more likely they will be to reconsider their support. Conversely, most Republican primary voters don’t know who Mitt Romney is. But, like Howard Dean in 2004, Romney may well emerge as a real contender as we get closer to the actual primaries.

The Democratic side is even more interesting. Four out of the five candidates topping the polls are people who have significant name recognition. Gore, Kerry, and Edwards are all former national candidates. And Hillary is, well, Hillary. But notice that the least well known (by far) among the five, Barack Obama, is already polling at 23%. That strikes me as far more significant than any other data point in the poll.

And, of course, you always have to be on the lookout for the person who will inevitably emerge from total obscurity to become an important player. It happens almost every cycle.Long story short, don’t read too much into these polls.

I think AL makes some really excellent points, including the name recognition factor. One candidate in particular, Romney, is someone who I'm favoring given my big love for governors-as-prez-candidates and the fact that he's putting together quite an operation (the guy just bought Clear Channel for crissakes!), including his courting of bigtime Bush donors. And his last paragraph lends credence to my Mike Huckabee theory, as he fits the bill of obscurity while still being a governor (Arkansas). His time is growing short to make a big splash, but I still see him having potential.

On the Dem side, he also makes a good point about Barack Obama, a man who entered the national scene in a somewhat limited capacity just two years ago. For him to already be polling this strong this early bodes well for him.

Still, AL does make the most important point of all; this stuff means next to nothing. Still, if nothing else, I'll be able to look back on this 18 months from now and see just how right or wrong some of my ramblings may have been.

2006-11-19T18:47:00.000-06:00

WANTED! Do you have an opinion? See something that pisses you off that just makes you want to tell someone? Then America's Least Wanted wants you! If you think you might like to try your hand at a little political blogging, drop me a line at budpaul@gmail.com. I'm not looking for the Federalist Papers or anything; just someone with a point-of-view and an ability to express it.

HACK - Chris Wallace

2006-11-19T15:31:00.000-06:00

Chris Wallace had Senator John Kerry in studio today and felt it necessary to spend the vast bulk of the interview badgering Kerry on his supposed botched joke (C&L has the video).

Much like Wallace did several weeks ago when he interviewed President Clinton and sandbagged him the whole way, he utilized all manner of straw man arguments and other nonsense to pummel Kerry over something he apologized for weeks ago. Over and over, Wallace demonstrated a tenacious streak that would serve him and the country well if he would instead direct at it those in power who have gotten us into the Iraq quagmire rather than on a senator taking a potshot at Bush.

I'm not sure how much clearer Kerry could have been in his responses. His joke was never an insult to the troops; he took himself out of campaigning of his own volition and not at the request of colleagues; and people don't care about this as it's in the past, and the American people want to look forward and to changing the direction of the country.

Chris continued his attack, using out of context video that Kerry immediately called him on. He then again stressed that the American people voted for change, yet that did not dissuade Wallace from again beating the dead horse of a joke. It's like Kerry could have flagellated himself on national television in penance over the remark and Wallace still would have continued harping on it. A reminder - this "botched joke" happened three weeks, one election and two Democratic chamber takeovers ago. Wallace's inability to let it go is an example of a pre-November 7th mindset. Americans have moved on, Wallace would benefit from doing the same.

MORE FLIPPITY FLOPPITY - John McCain

2006-11-19T09:06:00.000-06:00

Continuing his efforts at giving sloppy wet kisses to the far right wing he chose not to court back in 2000, McCain took a huge jump into the realm of wingerville today by supporting the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

Of course, back in 1999, John "Moderate Edition" McCain claimed that overturning Roe would be dangerours for women and would not support such a move. From Think Progress:

I’d love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.

Seven years can apparently change a man's mind, as John "Right-Wing-Jerry-Falwell-Courting" McCain now claims that the Supreme Court should not be legislating from the bench as they did on Roe and should most certainly be overturned by a newer high court decision so that the issue could be decided by the states. Further, he supports a constitutional amendment prohibiting a woman's right to control her own body.

Looking forward eighteen months into a future where McCain is the GOP nominee (no guarantee, to be certain), it behooves the Democratic candidate to pound McCain into the ground at every available opportunity on his flip flopping. His name should be Flip-Flop McCain whenever speaking about him. Not POW McCain. Not Maverick McCain. Flip-Flop McCain. The name should become so ingrained on the public's mind that Flip-Flop McCain should request that ballots list him as Flip-Flop McCain in order to avoid confusion for people who don't know who this John fellow is.

Seriously, if nothing else this is a good thing for our side. For years, we have been attempting to shine a light on John McCain, who is so adored by the media that they refuse to see him as anything other than the Maverick who occassionally talks tough to George W. Bush (but then inevitably toes the company line - remember the ban on torture?). This portrayal of him has been so infuriating because anyone who would choose to do even a cursory evaluation of his record would find that he is one of the most conservative members of his party, despite the Maverick nonsense. His decision to support the overturning of Roe v. Wade may go long way to convincing independent voters that McCain is most certainly not one of them. The final question will come down to media involvment - will they allow McCain to have his cake and eat it too? Can he continue to kneel at the altar of Falwell and the hard right wing while simultaneously getting a pass from the media because they like using the term "Maverick" to describe him?

COME AGAIN? - Karl Rove

2006-11-18T17:05:00.000-06:00

The twenty-second amendment to the Constitution establishes that a president shall not be elected to the office more than twice, so as far as George W. Bush running for office again, we are obviously in the clear. There are unfortunately no amendments on the books that cover who runs a presidential election, so have more than likely not seen the last of one Karl Rove.

A recent report suggests that his time in the employ of the White House may be drawing to a close.

The rumors that chief White House political architect Karl Rove will leave sometime next year are being bolstered with new insider reports that his partisan style is a hurdle to President Bush’s new push for bipartisanship. “Karl represents the old style and he’s got to go if the Democrats are going to believe Bush’s talk of getting along,” said a key Bush advisor.

Other elements are also at play: The election yesterday of Sen. Trent Lott to the number two GOP leadership position in the Senate is also a threat to the White House and Rove, who worked against him when he battled to save his majority leader’s job after his insensitive remarks about Sen. Strom Thurmond.

And insiders report that Bush counsel Harriet Miers isn’t a fan, believing that Rove didn’t do enough to help her failed Supreme Court nomination among conservatives. In fact, one top West Wing advisor said that the unexpected ouster of Rove aide Susan Ralston over ethics questions was orchestrated by Miers as a signal to Rove to leave. The advisor said that Rove is aware of the situation and that a departure might come in “weeks, not months.” A Rove ally, however, noted that he has a record of out-witting his critics.

Some find this scenario far-fetched, including David Kurtz, (the indespensible "recent" addition to the Talking Points Memo crew).

I'm not inclined to give a whole lot of credence to the rumors that Karl Rove will leave the White House soon. Does it make sense on some levels? Sure. But part of the rumor involves Harriet Miers plunging a shiv into Rove's back, and I find that so hard to believe, it makes me skeptical that any of the rumor is true.

While the actual mechanics of his potential departure may still be up in the air, I find the timing of the situation indicative of the fact that we have not seen the last of Rove on the campaign trail. After all, Rove's dirty tricks career stretches back over three decades.

In the fall of 1970, Rove used a false identity to enter the campaign office of Democrat Alan J. Dixon, who was running for Illinois State Treasurer, and stole 1000 sheets of paper with campaign letterhead. Rove then printed fake campaign rally fliers promising "free beer, free food, girls and a good time for nothing," and distributed them at rock concerts and homeless shelters, with the effect of disrupting Dixon's rally (Dixon eventually won the election).

I see no reason that just because Bush's time in office is thankfully coming to an end that Rove's time as a political consultant should also cease. His leaving the White House in the near future allows him the opportunity to latch onto any one of a plethora of potential GOP candidates in '08. While an ugly history would seem to preclude him working for John McCain, I could certainly see him latching onto Mitt Romney or possibly even Rudy Giuliani (though I find the latter less likely for some reason).

One thing is for certain, though Bush's time in office will be over in less than 800 days, Rove will almost certainly find himself in the thick of presidential politics well before then.

MINORITY POWER

2006-11-18T12:13:00.000-06:00

Throughout the Democrats time in the minority, they were constantly threatened by the ominous "nuclear option", which would have entailed eliminating the filibuster from use by the minority. A filibuster allows the minority to exercise some amount of power over such things as judicial nominees. A filibuster can be halted by 60 senators voting to stop it. The GOP, wishing to jam through some of George W. Bush's more offensive judicial nominees threatened to to get a parliamentary ruling forbidding filibusters on judicial nominations.

I thought during the entire debate that it was amazingly stupid and shortsighted of the Republicans to even consider such move as there was no guarantee they would always be the majority party, despite bloated claims the contrary. If the GOP leadership had decided to detonate this option, and then subsequently lost power in a future election (which is what happened), they would have been the first to stand up and scream about what an unfair move it was and that the Democrats should immediately revert to its original formulation.

Alas, the option was not chosen, and the filibuster remains in place. And so much the better for the Republicans as I've noted two separate instances where they intend to use their filibuster power during the coming session. The first instance I noted was Senator James Inhofe (R-KS), a man who has a sort of "earth is flat" mentality when it comes to global warming. Despite mountains of evidence of it's existence and it's man-made causes, Inhofe continues to zealously insert his fingers in his ears and scream LALALALALALALALA! No surprise of course that Inhofe's biggest contributors are in the energy/natural resources sector. And anyone who dared bring any climate change legislation to a vote, he would most certainly filibuster it (C&L has the video). Though to be fair, Inhofe claims that he won't have to use a filibuster because "the votes aren't there because the science is not there." I can almost see this neanthertal riding home in his little foot-powered Flintstone mobile, the man is so damn out-of-step with the present and reality.

The next contestant in the biggest hypocrite race is new Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, who issued a threat to obstruct Senate business if Bush doesn't get a vote on his far-right nominees.

The Senate's next Republican leader issued a veiled threat to block action on legislation if Democrats refuse to allow confirmation votes on President Bush's troubled judicial nominations.

Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who will become minority leader Jan. 4, told the conservative Federalist Society Friday not to feel bad about the Senate election results because Republicans will hold 49 seats in a body that requires 60 votes to end a filibuster and bring legislation or presidential nominees to a final vote.

If the "Democrats want our cooperation, they'll give the president's judicial nominees an up-or-down vote," McConnell said.

So, do what we say, or we stop all Senate work. Wait, aren't the Dems the party of obstruction? After all, no less a personage than Bush himself recently called Democrats the party of obstruction, which, based on the context of his remarks would seem to indicate that this is something of a bad thing. Yet now it is the Republicans who wish to champion the mantle of obstuctionism now. Just so we're clear, when Dems do it, that's bad. When Repubs do it, that's good. Ladies and gentlemen, I bring you hypocrisy in action.

NOT FORGOTTEN

2006-11-18T09:34:00.000-06:00

In the euphoria of having won both houses of Congress back ten days ago, it's entirely possible that some folks might have forgotten all the shenanigans (and dare I say, criminal activity) that went on during the election. Case in point, right wing radio host Laura Ingraham, urging her listeners to jam a voter protection hotline, and in so doing, obstruct efforts to protect the voting rights of Americans. Luckily, there are people in Congress who have not forgotten such things.

Incoming chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Patrick Leahy (D-VT) asked an official with the Justice Department if Ingraham's offense should be considered a violation and the official appears to agree (Think Progress has the video).

I glad that there are people like Senator Leahy in office who chose not to gloss over such offenses simply because our side was able to overcome the various voter suppression tactics employed by the right. Of course, the question has been asked; I await to see if there is follow through.

Oh, almost forgot to mention, the irritating robocalls that harassed hundreds of thousands of voters may become a thing of the past. In addition to federal legislation being considered in both chambers of Congress, the movement is underway to make it a state offense as well. For those not in the know, a quick refresher - the robocall would start by saying "I have information about (Democratic Candidate X)," then leave a pause, and follow with a hit piece on that Democratic candidate, with the disclaimer about the call being sponsored by the NRCC coming at the very end. If the voter hung up early on the call, it would automatically call back 7 or 8 times until the call ended. If you kept hanging up, you were annoyed with what you think is the campaign for the Democratic candidate. If you listened to the end of the call, you heard a hit piece on that candidate.

There is anecdotal evidence to suggest that the system may have had an effect as some people noted that they would not vote for a Dem candidate because they kept being harassed by them, which of course, they were not. This is simply more evidence that Republicans cannot win on their merits; they must resort to trickery in order to succeed. It speaks volumes abou the current state of the Republican Party.

BUTCHIN' - Hugh Hewitt

2006-11-17T19:27:00.000-06:00

If you'd like to read a well-Reasoned, evisceration of the Republican punditry, and in particular, Hugh Hewitt, from the libertarian viewpoint for a change, check out "I Just Blogged to Say I Hate You, The dead end of Republican punditry", by David Weigel.

MORE THAN MEETS THE EYE - Rudy Giuliani

2006-11-17T17:50:00.000-06:00

My ongoing fascination with the Rudy Giuliani candidacy continues (again) today. The biggest question mark in many people's minds as to how hard right conservatives could accept a social liberal like Rudy may actually have an answer, as Greg Sargent reports:

Giuliani is laying the groundwork to make the case to social conservatives that he isn't the social liberal he's been made out to be. Maybe he'll blame the liberal media for painting him as a liberal, or something.

Seriously, Rudy's impending effort to pull off a convincing ideological self-transformation is going to form one of the more interesting storylines to watch as we move into the Presidential race. As someone who's seen him up close undergoing previous political mutations over the years, I can tell you that he's way better at distancing himself from the reality of his own past -- and sounding awfully sincere in the process -- than many people might think. So: Will the big news orgs hold Giuliani accountable for his own past statements and positions on issues important to GOP primary voters, or will his designation by the media as an "independent" Republican who allegedly says what he thinks earn him the same kind of hands-off treatment the big pundits and commentators have tended to grant to fellow "straight-talker" John McCain?

So, a plan is apparently in place to whitewash years of executive decisions during his time as mayor of New York. Giuliani knows that his credentials as "America's Mayor" will only gain him so much goodwill with voters; the next phase of Extreme Makeover: President Rudy Edition begins soon.

STILL DANGEROUS - George W. Bush

2006-11-17T17:01:00.000-06:00

It is common knowledge that George W. Bush's first tentative steps into the unknown realm of bipartisanship have been bumpy ones at best. Days after pledging to work with the Democrats that now control both houses of Congress, he renominated the controversial and recess-appointed John Bolton to his post as Ambassador to the UN. Days later, he renominated several persons to appellate judge posts; the previous appointments were unacceptable to Democrats back when they were in the minority and their position will certainly not change now that they are in control.

The moves by Bush were widely heralded as examples of his innate inability to even comprehend the word bipartisan, let alone govern in such a manner. Given that these appointments require approval for the Congress, they have little chance of ever getting through, thus negating some amount of pandering to the right wing Bush was hoping to achieve (though the simple fact of renominating these figures will probably be enough of a gesture to placate them for a time).

There are however some positions that Bush can fill that do not require congressional approval, and such is the case in regards to a Dr. Eric Keroack, who was recently appointed as new chief of family-planning programs at the Department of Health and Human Services. The position puts Keroack in charge of "$283 million in annual family planning grants that are designed to provide access to contraceptive supplies and information to all who want and need them with priority given to low-income persons", according to HHS.

From the Washington Post:

The Keroack appointment angered many family-planning advocates, who noted that A Woman's Concern supports sexual abstinence until marriage, opposes contraception and does not distribute information promoting birth control at its six centers in eastern Massachusetts.

"A Woman's Concern is persuaded that the crass commercialization and distribution of birth control is demeaning to women, degrading of human sexuality and adverse to human health and happiness," the group's Web site says.

From Alternet, an exploration into the types of tactics used by 'crisis pregnancy centers' like A Woman's Concern:

According to a recent Planned Parenthood email, a 17-year-old girl mistakenly walked into a crisis pregnancy center thinking it was Planned Parenthood, which was next door. "The group took down the girl's confidential personal information and told her to come back for her appointment, which they said would be in their 'other office' (the real Planned Parenthood office nearby)."
When she showed up for her nonexistent appointment, she was met by the police, who had been erroneously tipped that a minor was being forced to abort. The crisis pregnancy center staff followed up this harassment by staking out the girl's house, phoning her father at work, and even talking to her classmates about her pregnancy, urging them to harass her.

As Michelle Goldberg at Huffington Post notes,

Bush has appointed a number of pro-life activists to important positions in the federal bureaucracy. Keroack is unique, though, because the job he's been given is all about the distribution of contraceptives, something he appears to oppose in principal. Again, from A Woman's Concern: "A Woman's Concern is persuaded that the crass commercialization and distribution of birth control is demeaning to women, degrading of human sexuality and adverse to human health and happiness."

So, in Dr. Keroack, we have someone who opposes contraception and won't tell women about birth control, he basically advocates the exact opposite of what family planning is supposed to function. He is just another example of the fact that while Bush's power has been weakened now that Dems control Congress, he is still a dangerous commodity that must be scrutinized at every turn. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino noted, "The president has said we will look to reach common ground where we can find it. However, he's not going to compromise on his principles." I question if there will be any position where Bush can compromise.

LABEL REDUX - John McCain

2006-11-17T15:23:00.000-06:00

First, Bush made famous the compassionate conservative moniker which basically amounted to next to nothing considering that time has borne out the fact that Bush is neither compassionate nor a conservative.

A couple of days ago, CNN developed the label moderate conservative and applied it to "America's Mayor" Rudy Giuliani. I'm assuming the moderate part of the label is to cover up any number of instances where Rudy would most certainly fall on the far end of conservative, including getting a few divorces, living with a gay couple and supporting a woman's right to choose.

Now joining the lexicon on pointless political spectrum labels, we have the common sense conservative, embodied by presidential hopeful John McCain. While I'm not precisely certain, could this be some sort of verbal exposition that diagrams McCain's obvious conservative streak that is somehow completely hidden in the light of the media as they continue to felate him with his maverick label? In other words, moderate and mavericky on the outside, conservative and squishy on the inside?

I suppose my only question now is, what's next? What presidential hopeful will step up with a brand new label? Perhaps Mitt Romney will come out as a Soft-and-Fuzzy Conservative - go give Mitt a hug - he's the cuddly conservative. Maybe Newt Gingrich can be the Mr. Rogers Conservative - he could wear cardigans and explain his economic plans with puppets.

ULTIMATE GOAL - Trent Lott

2006-11-17T13:58:00.000-06:00

Much has been made of the resurrection of Trent Lott's career insofar as it pertains to his reattaining a leadership position in the Senate minority. As I've noted previously, the reasons for all the huffing and puffing on the left (and in some quarters on the right) seem somewhat dated and overblown. Yes, Lott said some things that could be considered insensitive and even probably racist. Lott paid a price for those remarks by losing his leadership position. Four years later and here we are - Lott is the number two Republican in the Senate. Some might see this as yet another Republican lemon. I view this as an opportunity to make some lemonade.

John Dickerson at The Nation explains:

Unlike in the House, where the majority can make the minority hand over its lunch money, Lott and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell will have a lot of power in the Senate, where 60 votes are needed to get anything done. Lott will relish using his tricks and collaborating with his longtime friend McConnell to thwart Democrats. But he may also help pass more legislation than he kills. Lott is a conservative, but he's also a dealmaker. Three weeks after he took over for Bob Dole in 1996, he summoned his colleagues into the Senate chamber to criticize them at length for refusing to pass laws. He told Democrats and Republicans alike that the Senate had gotten "all balled up here." In the last days of that session, he surprised Washington by taking the initiative to produce a variety of compromises with the Clinton White House on health-care portability, budget cuts, and welfare.

A few quick achievements would help recast Lott as a competent legislator and bury the blight of his remarks four years ago. When bipartisanship serves his self-interest, Lott can be a Democrat's best friend[.]

Ultimately, this may come down to how we as opinion people on the left want this Congress to operate. Are we going to be a group that sounds the trumpets of bipartisanship in an effort to work with the other side of the aisle for the good of America? Or are we going to attempt to stick it to the GOP as early and as often as we possibly can, given how the Dems were treated during our years in the minority? Do we continue the tradition of partisan politics and pointless gridlock or do we attempt to return to a time before the so-called Republican Revolution, where a political party would win some and lose some, but at the end of the day, compromise was king? For all his faults, Lott appears to be a politician of the latter stripe. And if we truly want to change things and make life better for the average American and return our nation to a semblance of its former (pre-Bush) days, there are certainly worse people to reach across the aisle and shake hands with.

WATCH THIS VIDEO

2006-11-17T09:04:00.000-06:00

Got this over at Crooks and Liars. I know some of my readers don't frequent those parts, so I thought I'd put it up here. It details and demonstrates the torture technique known as waterboarding. We've heard an awful lot about the technique over the last few months; now you can see what everyone is talking about. Very well done piece.

Would it be inappropriate to call this neocon porn? Because I can just see a bastard like Doug Feith or Richard Perle spanking one out while watching this. Eh, maybe it's just me.

END OF STORY - Nancy Pelosi

2006-11-17T07:45:00.000-06:00

With all the hand wringing going on as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's failed leadership continues to crumble around her (or, at least, that's what one would think given how much ink her support of John Murtha over Steny Hoyer for Majority Leader has gotten), I think that it's important if we distill this down to its most rudimentary components. Per Atrios, who absolutely slams it out of the park:

Pelosi backed her friend out of loyalty, he lost, everybody moves on.

Wow. I don't think anyone could have put that any plainer. Thank you, sir.

Of course, if you're interested in something a bit more complex in its analysis, I direct you to The Nation, who does its best to quell the tempest in a teapot this stupidity has become.

Democrats from both camps contended that while Pelosi may have miscalculated in backing Murtha so aggressively, the entire race will be forgotten in a week. "She's a very smart woman who made a mistake in judgment," said Barney Frank. "But it's a one-off thing." Added David Obey, the 68-year-old incoming chair of the Appropriations Committee: "I've seen a lot of bigger fights. This was mild by comparison."

And through it all, the Democrats will somehow forge on. After 12 years of lock-step discipline within the Republican caucus, it's understandable that the media might not recognize quaint notions like debate and differences of opinion. Hopefully, in time their memories will be sufficiently jogged.

THE PARTY OF FAMILY VALUES

2006-11-16T16:47:00.000-06:00

For all their talk as the party of family values and the protectors of the sacred institution of marriage, it strikes me as sort of hypocritical that three of the top candidates for the Republican nomination in 2008 all just happen to be adulterers who have each been married at least twice. I speak of course of John McCain, Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani. And obviously I'm not the only one who sees a problem with this as former GOP congressman Bob Dornan (R-CA) is so incensed with it that he's considering a run for president. Dornan is the lovely little man with a, *ahem* excuse the expression, hard-on against gays and has said such lovely things as, "Don't use the word 'gay' unless it's an acronym for 'Got Aids Yet?" and "Every lesbian spear chucker in this country is hoping I get defeated[,]" which he said to a Los Angeles television reporter in 1992.

While I personally find Dornan a repugnant human being, he does bring up a good point. One of these three men could be the torchbearer for their party, yet all carry with them an undeniable stench of hypocrisy as they go around courting the right wing of their party. It's just one more reason why I cannot wait for coming presidential election. This is going to be great to watch.

[h/t Americablog]

QUICK RUDY NOTE (via TPM Election Central):

It appears that CNN has created a new political label for "America's Mayor" Rudy Giuliani. In announcing John McCain's formation of an exploratory committee, the prerequisite step for announcing one's candidacy.

McCain's name recognition can only be matched by former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who filed papers with the Federal Election Commission to form a committee last week. The moderate conservative's performance in the wake of the September 11, 2001, attacks earned him praise and fame across the nation.

Moderate conservative? Whaaaa?!? Is that like telling my little daughter not to touch a recently turned-off oven because it's warm hot? As a reader to TPM noted:

So now they've invented a new classifaction just for their sweetheart. He gets to be both a moderate and a conservative. This way, the conservatives are re-assured, as are the general public.
Will they describe Hillary -- or any of the Democratic contenders -- as "moderate progressives"? Don't hold your breath.

So, CNN has taken it upon themselves to make up labels for a candidate they cannot stop tripping over themselves to pump up. You can call him whatever you want, and it won't make up for the fact that Rudy supports rights for gays and is an adulterer involved in a terribly messy divorce during his time as "America's Mayor". It's no stretch in punditry to suggest that there's no chance this type of resume will fly with primary voters. No matter what he's labeled.

PROVE IT - Glenn Beck

2006-11-16T13:52:00.000-06:00

This story has been floating around the internets for a couple of days so I thought I might step up to the plate and take a swing at it. CNN talkshow host Glenn Beck was interviewing the first Muslim American elected to Congress, Keith Ellison (D-MN). Here's what the open minded Beck just had to say to Ellison (via Think Progress, who also has video):

On the November 14 edition of his CNN Headline News program, Glenn Beck interviewed Rep.-elect Keith Ellison (D-MN), who became the first Muslim ever elected to Congress on November 7, and asked Ellison if he could "have five minutes here where we're just politically incorrect and I play the cards up on the table." After Ellison agreed, Beck said: "I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.' "

Is this guy kidding? Sadly, no. Beck is serious. The lunacy of the statement simply cannot be taken as anything other than a serious question that "a lot of Americans" feel the same way about. Except we don't. See, Americans do not make it a habit of condemning a man, as Beck did, simply because he practicing Muslim, which, by the way, is one of the most practiced religions in the world; a religion practiced by over a billion peace-loving people.

With the type of interviewing process practiced by Beck, I'm curious if other guests are subjected to similar treatment. For instance:

When interviewing a white Republican member of the House, does he demand, "Sir, prove to me that you are not molesting children."

When interviewing a member of the Black Congressional Caucus, does he demand, "Sir, prove to me that you are not responsible for the genocide in Darfur."

When interviewing a mother from North Carolina or Texas, does he demand, "Ma'am, prove to me that you are not contemplating killing your children."

When interviewing a member of Congress who is of German descent, does he demand, "Sir, prove to me that you or a member of your family did not slaughter Jews during the Holocaust."

I could go on all day with these, but I think I sort of made my point. What Beck did was not a quick jaunt into the realm of political incorrectness; it was a headlong dive into a pool of ugly intolerance and bigotry, a place where Beck seems quite comfortable wading in more often than not. He's a dispicable little man who has no business on on a major news network if all he has to offer is hate like this. If I wanted this kind of filth journalism, I'd switch over to Fox News.

2006-11-16T08:23:00.000-06:00

WE SEE WHAT WE WISH TO SEE

This past Sunday I commented on Saturday Night Live using its cold open on a wonderful Nancy Pelosi skit. (I checked YouTube throughout the week for it, but NBC pulled all the videos due to copyrights and they have not posted it on their website, which is a shame, because it's a funny skit. The best I can do at this point is to direct you towards a transcript of the skit; better than nothing, I suppose) I reproduce my original post on the topic below:

Last night, Saturday Night Live did its part in recognizing the new world order now dawning in Washington. After years of tired John Kerry and Al Gore jokes, the show hit one out of the park with it's cold open featuring Kristen Wiig as Nancy Pelosi. As soon as I can find a video or link, I'll put it up, but it's basically a worst-case-scenario as far as the conservative fears over Pelosi becoming House Speaker as she brings her "San Francisco values" to the position two heartbeats from the presidency. The skit featured an excellent impression of Pelosi by Wiig and a leather-clad office assistant (in a role Will Forte should do more of because his Bush impression is nothing short of painful to watch most times) accompanied by his human ashtray.

About the only non-funny thing about it was the fact that some lonely conservative voter sitting home alone Saturday night turned to his dog and said, "Yep, that's what them dern Democrats have unleashed upon the U S of A. Bastards!"

One thing you should know about me - I never ever get tired of being proven right, and boy was I right about that last sentence. So right, that there's an entire message board full of people who continue to prove my point that the right does not have a sense of humor.

Courtesy of our buddies on the right, I bring you comments from Free Republic:

- Hilarious. SNL finally got one right for a change.

- Hilarious and true. SNL finally got one right for a change. I hope the DUmmies have seen this.

- Too funny....sadly too true

- That *POP* sound is that of heads exploding over on DU. SNL gets everyone. Now it's their turn! =D

- This is a must view skit to see what is probably the next Speaker of the House. SNL hit one out of the ballpark!

- Thanks, that's great! SNL does on occasion make fun of Dems, unlike The Daily Show.

- Thanks, I sure believe You and am fearful for what America will experience in the next hopefully only two years. Everyone should check this out. Its scary!!!!!!!

Um, Freepers, I'm not sure how to break this to you gently, so I'm just going to come out and say it - this skit was not making fun of Democrats or Nancy Pelosi. This skit was making fun of people like you who actually believe number one, that there is such a concept as evil "San Francisco values" and number two, that these values would lead to a modern day Sodom and Gomorrah in Washington now that Pelosi is House Speaker. The fact that you all didn't get that the joke is on you leads me to believe that either you really are as ~~mind-numbingly stupid~~ oblivious as most people believe you to be or that you all are in such a state of denial that you cannot comprehend satire at its most basic level. I'll hedge my bets and assume that it's an unhealthy combination of both. I blogged about it earlier this week how the right seems to have some sort of affliction that does not allow it to comprehend humor when it is aimed squarely at them; this is simply further corroborating evidence of this phenomenon.

Oh, and I mentioned before that the video was pulled by NBC as the skit being broadcast around YouTube is a no-no because the content was used without permission. Fair enough; it's their stuff, they have a right to control it as they see fit. I don't agree with it because I think it's like free advertising, but it's their stuff. However, to the Freepers, it's all a big conspiracy:

- Oh yea, NBC want's it pulled cuz it slams a dem. Have they EVER had one pulled that slammed a conservative?

- This video has been removed at the request of copyright owner NBC Universal because its content ~~was used without permission~~ slams a Democrat
Fixed.

Freeperland is a scary scary place. Enter at your own risk, but be forewarned, your IQ may drop by double digits for every moment you spend there. Extensive exposure may result in drooling and unhealthy Bush worshipping.

2006-11-15T18:05:00.000-06:00

"C" STUDENT

GEORGE W. BUSH

George W. Bush's "C" grade efforts during his schooling career are really demonstrating themselves. Though I do not know what is score was on the SATs or whatever entrance exam he had to take to enter the realm of higher education at Yale, he clearly performed poorly on the vocabulary section.
This is evidenced by a recent revelation by incoming Senate judiciary committee chairman Patrick Leahy's revelation that Bush intends to once again nominate ultra-conservative judges to various federal benches (Think Progress and TPM have more).
So, in the interest of helping Bush learn at this late stage of his time in office, I provide him with this handy list:

struggle n. - a task or goal requiring much effort to accomplish or achieve.

As in, "Bush is struggling to understand the meaning of the term bipartisan."

bi·par·ti·san adj. - Of, consisting of, or supported by members of two parties, especially two major political parties: a bipartisan resolution.

As in, "Bush claimed after his party lost control of both houses of Congress that he would take a bipartisan approach to working with the Democrats. His actions, however, speak to a desire to continue his partisan streak by attempting to nominate these judges, as well as controversial and recess-appointed Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton.

moderate adj. - kept or keeping within reasonable or proper limits; not extreme, excessive, or intense.

As in, "Bush refuses to stop nominating ultra-conservative judges and will never look to more moderate choices even though his original selections will never win a vote in the Democratically-controlled Senate and the move will only serve to strengthen Bush's anti-Democrat bona fides."

compromise n. - a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands.

As in, "Bush is completely incapable of compromise when it comes to working with Democrats. He has spent six years displaying rank disdain for the party of opposition and will continue to do so through the rest of his presidency."

Which leads me to one final entry:

lame duck n. 1) An officeholder who has chosen not to run for reelection or is ineligible for reelection. 2) An ineffective person; a weakling.

As in, "Bush has a choice with two years remaining in office - he can attempt to work with the Democrats in Congress in an effort to salvage what's left of his time in office in order to work for the American people or he can continue his partisan ways and fully assume his position as a lame duck president."

2006-11-15T16:23:00.000-06:00

MINOR HERO
MAJOR HACK

Much is being made about John McCain's call to increase troop levels in Iraq in order to win the war. Yet, I haven't seen him pressed to explain why he takes such a position, or what, exactly qualifies him to assess the situation in terms of military strategy to the point of being able to challenge all the retired and active military who have so thoroughly rejected it.

McCain was a Vietnam era POW who received special treatment due to his Admiral father. Not only was he not significantly tortured, and kept segregated from other POW's in special quarters, a Russian surgeon was flown in to treat his injuries from the crash after he violated Article V of the military code of conduct by promising to provide military information to the enemy after only four days of captivity. Other U. S. captives with injuries were left to die by the Vietnamese. Afterwards, McCain did undergo intense psychological interrogation, but was not transferred to Hanoi Hilton until over 2 years after his capture, and violated the Code of Conduct in numerous instances. His level of torture is not comparable to those of many brave U.S. officers as described here, who never gave in, and never collaborated with the enemy.

I honor and appreciate his service to the country, and acknowledge the torment he endured, I just don't see how being an ex-POW after being shot down as a Naval Lt. Commander and pilot whose total hours of actual combat flight amounted to less than 11 hours over 23 flights qualifies him as a military expert, qualified to make military strategy determinations. McCain, who did return and attend the National War College in Washington, DC, and eventually retired as a Captain, still has more qualifications to make military decisions than those who have been making them. Get a complete rundown here, and here.

I just don't believe that he is making this call for increased troop strength in Iraq based on military judgement. I believe it is a political ploy and a political ploy only. (I know, you're shocked, shocked, right?)

McCain knows full well that the possibility of a massive influx of troops into this whirlpool to hell we find ourselves in is, at best, nil. So, then what? Iraq dives straight through the whirlpool into the depths of hell as soon as we withdraw, which is our only real option even under the best of circumstances, no matter how much we do to try to avoid such an outcome. How does that position McCain for his run for the presidency?

How about "I told you so, I told you so!", "If only the liberal Democrats had taken my advice and backed a massive deployment of additional troops, this wouldn't have happened" (even though it would have, of course, but who would be able to prove it?)

McCain, who was a lousy student at the U.S. Naval Academy, graduating 5th from the bottom of his class, is, nonetheless, no dummy when it comes to being a politician.

2006-11-15T16:15:00.000-06:00

IMPORTANT WORK

Much of the blogosphere is up in arms today over the election of Trent Lott as Minority Whip in the Senate. A quick refresher - Lott made racially insensitive remarks four years ago at Strom Thurmond's birthday party, opining that America would be in a better place if then-segregationist Thurmond had been elected president. The remark ultimately cost Lott his Majority Leader position. Fast forward four years, and he has again attained a leadership position in the new minority caucus.

To all of this, I give a big yawn.

Eight days ago, if this had occurred, I more than likely would have joined my fellow bloggers in spotlighting the outrage of such an occurence. Today, not so much. I am reminded of a Bugs Bunny cartoon from during the 1940s when Bugs is facing off against one of his antagonists (I believe Elmer Fudd) when suddenly word hits that America is at war. Bugs promptly stops the shenanigans and says something to the effect of, "Sorry, doc. I can't play with you no more; I've got important work to do," at which point he grabs a gun and heads off to fight the Axis.

I look at this tempest in a teapot on two levels. The first one being, Lott said this four years ago, he apologized for it and paid a political price for his remark. Four years later, he chose to have another go at it. His logic for running appears sound (from ABC News):

[Lott and Lamar Alexander (R-TN)] spent the night before intensely lobbying colleagues on the Senate floor with Lott, also a former whip, casting himself as the candidate more adept at dealmaking and Alexander pledging to be a morale-booster to a caucus still smarting over the midterm elections.

As recently as Tuesday night, Alexander's office predicted he had the support of as many as 30 Republicans senators. But Lott peeled off Alexander's supporters in part by arguing that in a Senate split by one vote, dealmaking expertise could mean the difference between Republicans passing legislation to tout in he next campaign in 2008 or risk being branded as do-nothing lawmakers.

Ultimately, one more Senator than the other guy agreed with Lott's approach.

The second level I view this on is a sort of detached one. This is the minority party hashing out their leadership. I see no reason for to carry around torches and pitchforks while railing against this over on our side. The Democrats are now the majority party; we now face the business of governance. Let us get to work while the minority party continues its missteps (and, as to the entire point of the post, I don't think it's that big of a misstep, but the media can and will latch on to this for the next newscycle). The Dems will be able to shine in the light as the party that works hard for the middle class while the minority party bumbles in the dark. Let us do the important work while the minority party continues to make the mistakes.

2006-11-15T14:30:00.000-06:00

GALLUP WEIGHS IN

As longtime readers no doubt are aware, I've been following early trends for the '08 presidential contest (because it's never too early). Gallup has provided their first post-election look as well, both for the Democrats and Republicans. (Full information, including methodology minutiae can be found here.) The results:

BASED ON 544 DEMOCRATS AND DEMOCRATIC LEANERS

Nov 9-12, 2006
Hillary Rodham Clinton 31
Barack Obama 19
John Edwards 10
Al Gore 9
John Kerry 7
Joe Biden 4
Wesley Clark 3
Bill Richardson 2
Evan Bayh 2
Russ Feingold 1
Tom Daschle 1
Christopher Dodd 1
Tom Vilsack 1

Other 2
None 1
All/any *
No opinion 6
* Less than 0.5%

BASED ON 379 REPUBLICANS AND REPUBLICAN LEANERS

Nov 9-12, 2006
Rudy Giuliani 28
John McCain 26
Condoleezza Rice 13
Newt Gingrich 7
Mitt Romney 5
Bill Frist 4
George Allen 2
George Pataki 1
Mike Huckabee 1
Chuck Hagel 1
Sam Brownback 1
Duncan Hunter *

Other 2
None 3
All/any --
No opinion 7
* Less than 0.5%

For the Dems, the results bare out about how I would have seen them, with Clinton the frontrunner and Obama within striking distance. With Edwards showing up in third, I wonder how much he might suffer from the "loser stench" from '04 election given how we Dems seem to shun our losers, rightly or wrongly. Gore's 9% will go to someone else after he makes his 100th speech denying any interest in running in '08. Same goes for Kerry, who's ship has sailed in my opinion. Depending on how the Iraq war develops over the coming year, Clark could see his support grow. Conversely, if illegal immigration continues to be a big factor, I could see Richardson gaining ground.

The GOP poll I found somewhat surprising, as Giuliani continues to poll very well, despite his non-conservative social views. McCain is very close so these two could be slugging it out over who can appeal more to the base throughout 2007. Rice appearing third was very surprising as she's given no indication towards presidential aspirations. And given the fact that she actually treated a gay couple at a recent event like they were, you know, human did her know favors among the far right anti-gay folks. Romney having only five percent was also surprising as I see him as a strong candidate who will quite likely be the third part of a three-way bout for the nomination. As always, Huckabee remains my darkhorse - and right now the polls bear that out.

2006-11-15T07:32:00.000-06:00

OH CRAP, THIS AGAIN?

BILL O'REILLY

Ugh, it's that time of year again. The holiday season is upon us, so you know what that means, right? Time to don your body armor and load your weapons - it's the War on Christmas time of year! Again.

In the story that no one gave two shits about last year, save tired polemics looking to sell books, it's time for everyone to get all up in arms because a greeter at a given department store says "Happy Holidays" as opposed to "Merry Christmas." And, like last year, Bill-O is leading the charge. On his program last night, he trumpeted his crusade to make the holiday shoppers safe from the benign yet completely offensive Happy Holidays phrase as some retailers this year have decided to go back to Merry Christmas.

I'm trying to write this with my usual clever and witty remarks, but I feel as though my brain is literally melting for having to even address this inane bit of nonsense that was pointless last year and it frustrates me to no end that it's being regurgitated yet again in '06. Memo to Bill - this was not a battle in the culture war, this is not a "problem" as you put it [video found at Think Progress]. This is useless filler designed for you to sell a few more copies of your silly little book. Get over yourself, you fearless culture warrior. You've taken what is basically a 20-second Seinfeld joke ("Did ya ever notice how greeters used to say Merry Christmas, but now say Happy Holidays? What is the deal?") and made it into the most pointless argument this side of a discussion on the pre-nup between Britney and K-Fed.

2006-11-14T22:59:00.000-06:00

NOW!

The "real" agenda of the Democratic majority is all well and good. I support it. However, there are a two issues that must be addressed now.

There is no time to wait. We must act now. Nothing, absolutely nothing, is more important than these two issues, and they cannot wait, not a day, not an hour, not one, single minute more. One second is unconscionable.

Bush & Co. belong in prison for not having addressed them to this point.

#1
End the horrors in Africa
I understand that the Congress does not conduct foreign policy, however, surely they could find a way to influence the administration or to bolster the U.N. to end the genocide in Darfur, the mass murders in the Congo, the war in Uganda, and the mass rape being conducted in all these places and even more.

PLEASE!

Why is this not at the top of the agenda in every country in the world? Could it have anything to do with oil?

Which brings me to...

#2
Global warming
We are at the tipping point. There is no more time for bullshit and politics and capitalism. If we are all to live, if our children are to live we must act now.

The very first thing we must do is something we must not do. We must not allow Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., to be appointed the next Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

"Environmentalists say any global warming policy must be accompanied by higher fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks. On that issue, they worry that Dingell, who represents thousands of auto workers and is a strong ally of the auto industry, could stand in the way.

Dingell has opposed raising those standards because of concerns that jobs could be lost and automakers might suffer even more than they are now economically."

Democrats cannot put the fox in the chicken coop as their first order of action to literally save this planet. Oppose it. Email Pelosi. This cannot happen. We must have an environmentalist in this key position.

Then, Congress must immediately move to reduce greehouse gas emissions and increase fuel economy. And these are just the first steps.

There is one bright spot of news. Bush was sued Tuesday under the Global Change Research Act of 1990.

2006-11-14T17:08:00.000-06:00

THE EMAIL AND THE INTERNETS

GEORGE H.W. BUSH

When in doubt, blame the bloggers. That's former president Bush's thoughts on why the political climate has gotten so nasty. In an interview with plastic surgery maven Greta van Susteren, Bush pins the blame on the nasty attitude in Washington and in politics in general on the evil electronic media and the bloggers (read: average Americans who have an outlet to voice this disapproval for his son).

I mean, you go back in history and you’ll find that there was always adversarial politics. There was always gut fighting. And it’s probably a little worse now given the electronic media and the bloggers and all these kinds of things.

So, as is usually the case when it comes to assigning blame, it's always everyone else's fault and never a Bush's fault. Apparently their ability to deflect blame, regardless of mountains of evidence to the contrary, runs in the family.

Another thing that apparently runs in the family is a pathological predeliction for secrecy [transcript via Think Progress].

GRETA: You are a letter writer. Tons of letters.

H.W. BUSH: Not anymore. Because now I use the email. And the computer. And I find that I don’t do near as much writing as I used to, letters as I used to. I don’t save them. And I am worried about that a little bit not that I have that much more to say, but I think it’s too bad in a way that email will detract from the historical record of presidents. I don’t think that the President Bush uses email.

BARBARA BUSH: He doesn’t.

H.W. BUSH: You worry about it. People are going to subpoena the email records and we are going to, you know, you’ve gotta prove that you were telling the truth and all this stuff. I mean, it’s gotten so adversarial that it’s ugly.

So, correspondence to and from a president will work to detract from the historical record? Am I the only one who finds that sort of confusing in a backwards sort of way? Though given how predisposed Bush Jr. is to telling the truth (see: lying to the media about Rumsfeld's resignation), I can see why he would strenuously avoid committing anything that would eventually be used against him. Unlike Nixon, I don't see Bush recording his conversations. But Sr. does have a point; it's a shame that Bush might actually have to prove that he's telling the truth from time to time. Those darn bloggers are just so unfair to expect their leaders not to lie to them and stuff. We bloggers are idealists like that.

2006-11-14T15:16:00.000-06:00

MORE REPUBLICAN HYPOCRISY

One of the tired scare tactics the GOP dragged out during the midterm campaigns was the specter of endless Democratically led congressional investigations into the various misdeeds and lawbreaking by the White House during their time in leadership; investigations they refused to carry out even with a constitutional mandate for oversight (and there is certainly no shortage of instances to investigate). But the GOP attempted to use this as a reason not to vote for the Dems. After all, there's nothing Americans hate more than accountability; or at least, I guess that's what the Republicans thought.

Now, thanks to the power of the internet, and more specifically, Crooks and Liars, we can look back to a simpler time in America, say 1994, when the GOP was poised to take over Congress and hold the almighty power of the subpoena. As John Amato notes over at C&L, "Gingrich went nuts over Clinton and his new-found subpoena power, yet if Democrats want to hold hearings on oversight and Iraq war profiteering that's supposed to hurt them." Gingrich basically ran on his ability to subpoena and investigate the Clinton White House. According to a Washington Post article at the time, Gingrich told a group of assembled lobbyists at a meeting that if the GOP wins control of Congress and the ability to subpoena, they would "spend the next two years investigating corruption in the Clinton Administration." Newt's not even being subtle about it, yet all the GOP could do was whine about the coming endless investigations if Dems regained control.

As I recall, all that investigating of Clinton turned up next to nothing as Whitewater and Travelgate and all the other "-Gates" that came along amounted to a hill of beans. Yet here we've got an adminstration that's been admonished by no less an authority than the Supreme Court, but of course Dems shouldn't waste time looking back.

I suppose that ultimately the right wing and their bobbleheads to say whatever they want - whether it's complaints about the specter of investigations or whether we elected a bunch of conservative Democrats last Tuesday - the proof will come when we're doing the investigating and we're passing a progressive agenda and we're doing what's right for the country while the sit in the corner and complain.

2006-11-14T13:04:00.000-06:00

OUR NEW AGENDA

I just posted this over at Demokat, and after seeing Paul's post below, I couldn't resist cross-posting it here. Wouldn't it be hilarious if this was truly our new agenda? I'd be entertained for years watching the wingnuts freak out.

Big Dumb Chimp, another progressive S.C. blogger, ref's Stranger Fruit's (from AZ, okay?) hilarious post on our new Dem Agenda:

1. Mandatory homosexuality

2. Drug-filled condoms in schools

3. Introduce the new Destruction of Marriage Act

4. Border fence replaced with free shuttle buses

5. Osama Bin Laden to be Secretary of State

6. Withdraw from Iraq, apologize, reinstate Hussein

7. English language banned from all Federal buildings

8. Math classes replaced by encounter groups

9. All taxes to be tripled

10. All fortunes over $250,000 to be confiscated

11. On-demand welfare

12. Tofurkey to be named official Thanksgiving dish

13. Freeways to be removed, replaced with light rail systems

14. Pledge of Allegiance in schools replaced with morning flag-burning

15. Stem cells allowed to be harvested from any child under the age of 8

16. Comatose people to be ground up and fed to poor

17. Quarterly mandatory abortion lottery

18. God to be mocked roundly

19. Dissolve Executive Branch: reassign responsibilities to UN

20. Jane Fonda to be appointed Secretary of Appeasement

21. Outlaw all firearms: previous owners assigned to anger management therapy

22. Texas returned to Mexico

23. Ban Christmas: replace with Celebrate our Monkey Ancestors Day

24. Carter added to Mount Rushmore

25. Modify USA's motto to "Land of the French and the home of the brave"

Y'all come on and join us at America's Least Wanted. Help us grow! Most of the "big dog" blogs have multiple contributors and every one benefits from varying points of view. Paul is a hardworking, insightful and generous blogger with a loyal following. He's been great to me and very helpful in my feeble attempts at establishing my own blog. He's been very understanding knowing that I'm kinda hit and miss with my entries as I try to make relevant contributions to his blogs as I can while giving voice to my wide-ranging views at my own, all the while battling an unpredictale illness. C'mon and dive in. The water's great!

2006-11-14T08:29:00.000-06:00

HITTING THE GROUND RUNNING

After sweeping both houses of Congress from the do-nothing rubberstamp Republican Congress last week, the Democrats are revving their engines as they prepare to take over in less than two months. Given just how much there is to clean up after so long in the wilderness, it seems the Dems definitely have more than a few goals in mind, and I'm glad to see that the press is starting to pick up on their agenda.

I was scanning TPM Muckraker's The Daily Muck for things to write about and there were no less than five articles from various news sources covering all that the Dems have in mind come January 3. Among the efforts, the Democrats will restore the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction; will put a halt to legislation allowing for warrantless (and currently illegal) wiretaps; set up Congressional investigations to look into the government's response to Katrina, government contracting in Iraq, political interference in regulatory decisions by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration, allegations of war profiteering, the administration's use of prewar intelligence on Iraq and into Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force.

This is in addition to the 100 Hours plan that aims to put rules in place to "break the line between lobbyists and legislation," enacting all the recommendation made by the 9/11 Commission, raise the minimum wage, cut the interest rate on student loans in half, allow the the government to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients and broaden the types of stem cell research allowed by federal funds.

The first few days and weeks of this new Democratically-led Congress will be exciting to watch, both for the Dems' determination to look back, but also to look ahead. We'll be watching.

2006-11-13T23:32:00.000-06:00

FUN & GAMES ANSWERS

Oops! Here are the answers to the quiz:

1 - f, 2 - b, 3 - h, 4 - a, 5 - c, 6 - g, 7 - e, 8 - d

2006-11-13T17:31:00.000-06:00

YELLOW MENACE*

MICHELLE MALKIN

Once again proving the adage that those on the right have absolutely no sense of humor, I bring you Michelle Malkin. She has chosen to take exception with a recent episode of The Simpsons, in which the military gets poked at by the epinomous cartoon characters. She had this to say this morning:

I got tons of e-mail about the military-bashing Simpsons episode last night. Here's a bit of the video if you haven't seen it and want to get in a bad mood. The mockery of Army recruiters and enlistees is absolutely disgusting. This comes on the heels of last week's election-timed episode mocking the Iraq war.

The show is getting long in the tooth and low on funny. Don't bother with it.

The first link leads to Hot Air, another conservative (and aptly named) site, that had this to say:

Another morale-booster from Groening and company. How pitiful is it that Cracked magazine did a funnier job of lampooning John Kerry than the Simpsons did with the U.S. military?

With good episodes increasingly hard to come by, it might be time for Fox to consider a timetable for withdrawal of this particular placeholder in the Sunday night lineup.

First off, I'd like to point out that the title of Malkin's post was "The Simpsons pull a John Kerry", implying that The Simpsons, like John Kerry, had bashed our troops. Malkin may be many things, but unintelligent she is not, and for her to continue to beat the anti-Kerry drum (when anyone with half a brain knows that Kerry was not insulting the military) works only to undermine any argument she might make and demonstrates an intellectual dishonesty that's ultimately detrimental to her cause. Moving on...

As I alluded to earlier, the right has demonstrated on a number of occasions its inability to see humor, even in situations they might not necessarily agree with. To that end, I thought I might educate them in the concept of subversive humor and parody and satire. Through the years, The Simpsons has dipped into this well far too many times to count, and more often than not, it's been effective. Of course, this is by no means an open-ended defense of the program as any show that has been on the air for almost two decades is bound to cover the same ground and lose it's edge. Personally, the show hasn't been on my must-see list for years, but I will click over to it from time to time.

As for the offending material itself, I found it humorous and chuckle-inducing, though by no means hilarious. And the clips from yesterday's episode in question should be judged on their merits, not on their political message. If you don't find it funny, that's fine; but consider something - might you not like it because it's unfunny as opposed to anti-military? I understand it's a subtle distinction for the boneheads who would actually take issue with a silly cartoon, but I feel it's important to point it out. The Simpsons has always attempted to plug into the cultural zeitgeist of the moment and this is just another example. In case you aren't aware, the military has in fact engaged in instances that were lampooned in the show, including references to Abu Gharaib and signing up enlistees of questionable intelligence. Just because you cannot accept some of the uglier aspects of what this war has wrought, doesn't mean that it isn't necessarily fertile ground for subversive comedy. And shining a light on it through satire does not necessarily make the program anti-military.

Finally, I'd like to point out one other thing Malkin said as she referred to a small portion of the week before's episode that mocked the Iraq war, what she termed as a politically timed move. Am I the only one who thinks that this is really dumb? Was there a person anywhere in this nation that watched the program in question (and we're basically talking about a 20-second joke that used the war in Iraq as an allegory for an alien invasion of Springfield, the fictitious town where the Simpsons live) and thought to themselves, "Ya know, that drooling alien creature with one eye is correct; we shouldn't be in Iraq as this cartoon clearly demonstrates the futility of the folly of America's Iraq occupation. I'm voting for my Democratic candidate now!" Again, it's humor people. It may not be the funniest, but it's intent is to entertain with a little nudge and a wink. The Simpsons had nothing to do with the GOP getting roundly defeated in the elections last week or Don Rumsfeld getting fired.

Oh, one addendum - Malkin received an email that she posted detailing another Fox cartoon, Family Guy also taking shots at the military. For those with a life, I will let you know that Family Guy is much coarser (and more random) in it's humor and there are definitely times when I'm watching and I'm thinking, "Gosh, that joke was somewhat inappropriate." Still, it's a funny show that I make a point of viewing weekly. Here's the email:

I wanted to bring to your attention a couple of outrageous clips from the November 5th episode of Family Guy. The family is shown having a discussion about the son possibly joining the Army. The mother is opposed to the idea. The father answers that the Army is great because you can get "money for college, free food and all the brown people you can rape." A bit later in the scene, the baby (who speaks) says "the bottom 10% of our high school class is off to fight another battle."
...I was a huge fan of the show prior to it being cancelled in 2003. Since it returned to FOX last year, it has been less about humor and more about liberal propaganda. After seeing that scene, I will never watch the show again and I will be sending a mass email to discourage others from watching.

Malkin provides clips for the program here and here. I thought it was a pretty funny episode, but that's just me.

Anyway, I bring up this guy, Peter, the email writer as he has chosen to boycott the program as it is now nothing more than a liberal propaganda organ what with it's anti-military slant. Okay, his call. Kinda dumb, but do what you want, I suppose. I claim that it's a dumb decision for any number of reasons, the biggest being that Family Guy cannot go two minutes without offending someone. As I said, it's a coarse program. Off the top of my head, I remember slights against Mickey Rooney, The Bangles, Zedan, Garth Brooks, Minnie Driver, and an exceptionally dumb suicide bomber. Further, the most recent episode featured all manner of dumb blonde jokes, yet I've heard of no boycott of the program by the dumb blondes in the world (though, in order to be more of an authority on the subject, I should perhaps troll around some dumb blonde blogs). If every group were to boycott Family Guy because of something that appeared on the show, there would be no viewers! Yet, it is only the silly righty bloggers who get up in arms because they seem incapable of processing any humor higher than the gentle musings of Family Circus. Get over yourselves, people. Accept the fact that you currently hold unpopular positions in our culture, and as such, you will be mocked from time to time. Just wait a few years and Dem-bashing will be in vogue once again (see: the decade of the 1990s).

* The Yellow Menace in the title refers to the Simpsons' yellow skins and not to Malkin, which would be really disgustingly racist of me. Just wanted to be clear.

2006-11-13T14:24:00.000-06:00

EARLY LOOK

POSTSCRIPT

Yesterday, I gave a look to potential Democratic presidential contenders in '08. After flitting around I found a great bit from the Washington Post doing the same thing for both parties. So, in the interest of giving different perspectives, I bring you the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza and The Fix's rankings and some thoughts as of this past Friday:

For the Dems:

1. Hillary Clinton - Clinton's stance on the war in Iraq is out of step with many in the Democratic base, and she is clearly vulnerable to a challenge from someone who has been opposed to the war from the start. Despite that seeming vulnerability, no one is better positioned at the moment to win the nomination.
2. Barack Obama - Obama's strengths are obvious -- huge buzz both inside and outside the Beltway and the perception that he could raise $50 million or more to compete with Clinton. His weaknesses? Lack of organization in any early primary or caucus state and a relative lack of experience on the national stage.
3. John Edwards - The one lingering question for Edwards is whether he can raise the tens of millions he needs to compete against Clinton and possibly Obama.
4. Evan Bayh - ... [C]an a centrist message appeal to the liberal activists who dominate the early presidential voting states?
5. Bill Richardson - ... Richardson is not the most disciplined of politicians, a trait that could work to his detriment over the long haul of a presidential effort.

For the GOP:

1. John McCain - No one -- and we repeat no one -- had a better year politically than McCain.
2. Mitt Romney - Romney is the best raw candidate in the Republican field and he is the equal of Obama and Edwards when it comes to charisma. He still must answer doubts among conservatives about his time in Massachusetts and seeming flip-flops on some social questions.
3. Rudy Giuliani - If Giuliani really is planning to run for president, he is taking a decidedly unorthodox approach to it. Giuliani has no staff in early states and doesn't appear to be doing too much courting of key money men and activists across the country.
4. Mike Huckabee - The past year looks like a wasted opportunity for the outgoing Arkansas governor.
5. Newt Gingrich - Gingrich, like Giuliani, seems more enamored with being mentioned as a potential presidential candidate than actually running ...

Not sure I'm feeling Chris on the Evan Bayh and Bill Richardson vibe, but I totally agree with his assessment of Gingrich and Giuliani.

2006-11-13T07:38:00.000-06:00

THE BANE OF SIGNING STATEMENTS

GEORGE W. BUSH

I've been pondering this over the last day or so, perhaps someone can shed some light. With Democrats now controlling the Congress, it is expected that they will follow through on their various proposals, including enacting the 9/11 Commission recommendations, cutting interest rates on student loans, making changes to the new Medicare law to allow for lower drug prices and raising the minimum wage to $7.25. Not the most ambitious slate, just common sense legislation that the American people can get behind and the Dems can hang their hat on as they travel the road as "agents of change."

My concern comes when I think about these various pieces heading to Bush's desk. To veto these would be nothing short of political suicide and a total repudiation of his stated desire to pursue a bipartisan approach to governance. What I consider a greater evil is the possibility that his infamous use of signing statements could derail any and all of these measures. For a president who actually took a bill that explicitly said 'no torture' only to have him write a signing statement saying 'yes torture', I see no reason why he would bat an eye using a signing statement to twist the legislation however he wants it.

One of the easiest to come to mind would be a signing statement gutting the minimum wage hike. Conventional wisdom indicates that the wage hike is long overdue and a no-brainer. So, assuming it sails through Congress, what's to keep Bush from whipping out a signing statement saying that the hike need not be enforced in businesses with under 100 employees? Would that not basically eliminate thousands of businesses like the fast food industry? I know that this is sort of a clunky example, but would anyone doubt that Bush and his lawyers could find some way to write in a loophole that effectively disemboweled whatever part of the bill they didn't care for?

For a man who took an anti-torture bill and wrote torture into it, I do not believe it to be that much of a stretch. Bush has no respect for the institution of Congress and the Constitution. Anything that impedes his acquisition of power must be minimized if not outright eliminated.

2006-11-12T18:32:00.000-06:00

EARLY LOOK

I've spent much time monitoring a monthly GOP presidential straw poll, yet I cannot locate a similar one for the Democrats. With that in mind, I intended to do a rundown of current Democratic contenders, taking into account the early "dropouts", Mark Warner and Russ Feingold. I quote dropouts because they never actually declared, but their names were widely bandied about as potential candidates before they personally put the breaks on their prospective candidacies.

I was an early supporter of Mark Warner as he was a former governor of Virginia, an obstensibly southern state. I get all squishy inside for governors running for president as it's been a successful route for many a winner, including Bush II, Clinton, Reagan, and Carter; or three of the last four to hold the office. Contrast that with senators, who have a grand total of one win (and a dubious one at that) stretching back to 1960 when JFK did so.

As I noted earlier, I intended to do a rundown of the current contenders when, lo and behold, Democratic strategist Joe Trippi went it did it for me already! And a fine job he did. Have a look. For clarity's sake, I'll include whatever thought I have in italics (from the Washington Post):

Front-runner: Hillary Rodham Clinton
She has it all -- the ability to raise the money; a political team that's among the best, if not the best, in the party; a strong base of support; and an uncanny ability to avoid political mistakes. And I don't care what anyone says -- her husband is one of two rock stars in the Democratic Party and a huge asset.
Ironically, the problem with Clinton's candidacy arises from her strength. Front-runners have something to lose, so they almost always run cautious, safe campaigns. This almost cost John Kerry the nomination in 2004, and could cost the senator from New York the nomination in 2008. Her strength also creates the certainty that a campaign of bold new ideas will emerge to oppose her. She is so strong within the party that, with so many contemplating a run against her, the only viable option for a serious challenger is to put forth innovative ideas in hopes of breaking out of the pack. And there are plenty in the Democratic Party who are capable of doing that.

[Like much of the left blogosphere, I was no fan of Hillary, feeling she was just too despised by the the right and well-defined by much of the electorate to have any chance at winning the general. Then I took a gander at an exhaustive article by The Atlantic and found myself intrigued. I'm still not sold on her, but my mind is more opened than it was.]

The "Other" Rock Star: Barack Obama
He's the one candidate who can wrestle Bill Clinton for support in the black community and win. All the others are both thrilled about and terrified of this guy. They're thrilled that he might take black votes from Hillary. They're terrified because he might take a lot more votes from them and become a co-front-runner the day he enters the race, if he does. Obama's obvious downside is inexperience. Three years ago, he was an Illinois state senator; in 2008, he will not have completed his first U.S. Senate term. So he had better have some ideas -- or wait till next time.

[After Warner dropped out, I gravitated somewhat towards Obama, though I am by no means 100% sold on him. I fear a similar smear tactic that was used against Harold Ford in Tennessee's ugly Senate race might also prove effective against Barack. Still, consider him my prohibitive choice at this moment.]

The Oxygen Taker: Al Gore
Talk about setting a progressive agenda with bold new ideas. The man is doing it and he doesn't even have a job. In a party that tends to treat its past nominees like lepers, Gore has done an amazing job of reemerging as an important thought leader on issues such as the Iraq war and global warming. If he throws his hat into the ring, he will immediately suck all the oxygen out of the room for most of the other candidates. The media won't be able to stop doing the Hillary vs. Al 800-pound-gorillas-go-at-it stories. Everyone but Obama will be reduced to begging for attention. But entering the race means he suddenly would have something to lose. Could candidate Gore stop himself from playing it safe?

[He's not afraid to speak out and take an unpopular position, as evidenced by his early opposition to the Iraq war back in 2003. Granted, he was in a position where he had nothing to lose, so it's not like he was risking much politically. I fear we'd be looking at a dusting off of the anti-Gore playbook if he were the nominee, where we'd hear retreads of Gore the Exagerator and Gore the Wooden Man; neither of which was particularly clever or necessarily accurate.]

The Champion of 2006: John Edwards
Hands down the guy who improved his position the most this year. Edwards leads the field in early polls in Iowa, which is more important than ever, because the 2008 nominating process is more front-loaded than in prior years. The former North Carolina senator has a bevy of ideas, and is the only Southerner, important to a party that has elected only two presidents in the past 30 years -- both from the South. All of which earns him a down arrow -- because once you take the lead in Iowa, the entire field tries to destroy you. Good luck.

[Whereas I appreciate his more lowkey and positive message, I'm not certain that it can work in this type of environment, where it's often the ugliest message getting the most attention. Being a private citizen for the last couple of years can no doubt help his outsider cred, a big plus for any Senator. For me, Edwards gets a big "wait and see" from me.]

Down but Not Out: John Kerry
The former presidential nominee was doing quite well until the "botched joke." Democratic losses in the House or Senate would have made a comeback impossible, so no one was happier than Kerry last Tuesday. The senator from Massachusetts is going to need to present some bold ideas to regain relevance in this field; I'd start with Iraq. And for those who want to count this guy out: He has come back from the dead before. Trust me, I speak from experience. Handicaps? It's all up from here or he's out.

[Not interested. Unlike Gore (who won the popular vote), Kerry was defeated. I see nothing he can offer that we haven't already seen. And like the attacks on Gore, we'd just be looking at a flip-flopper redux. No thanks.]

Chairman of Foreign Relations: Joe Biden
The senator from Delaware is doing what Kerry should do: taking the lead on the Iraq war and staking out ideas for bringing our troops home safely. But the down arrow stays until someone gets this guy to shut up and listen.

[But if he's president, how will he continue with his prodigious appearances on Sunday morning talkshows? Seriously, this guy has never met a camera he didn't need to talk to. The guy walks through a Best Buy and feels the need to talk to an associate because he happens to be in the camera section. I'm not fan of the guy; can you tell?]

Running to the Right: Evan Bayh
A senator who has actually run a government, the former governor of Indiana also hails from the region that may be most critical to a Democratic electoral victory -- the Midwest. In 2004, Democrats lost Missouri and Ohio, electoral votes that would have put Kerry over the top. Bayh could be the best bet for picking up three or four Midwestern states. He seems to be running to Clinton's right, which will prove to be either pure genius (he has a lane all to himself) or a disaster -- ask President Joe Lieberman.

[See the Lieberman reference above. Skewing to the right is no way to gain my support.]

The One to Watch: Russ Feingold
Perhaps the most authentic candidate, the senator from Wisconsin has a deep connection to the grass roots and is a favorite of the party's progressive wing. If President Bush stays stubborn on Iraq and the rest of the field plays it safe, Feingold could get very hot.

[As I noted previously, he officially removed himself from contention earlier.]

A Resume to Die For: Bill Richardson
He'd be the first Hispanic to make a presidential run, and his r?sum? covers nearly every issue, foreign or domestic. Need bold ideas on immigration? New Mexico Gov. Richardson has grappled with that. Ideas on energy? Ask former energy secretary Richardson. How to deal with a nuclear North Korea? Former U.N. ambassador Richardson knows the turf. But can he raise the money, and earn enough early support to get his ideas into the mix?

[Eh, he's a governor, so you'd think I'd be hot for him, but I'm not big on the guy. I'm open to being convinced though.]

The General: Wesley Clark
He still has a strong following among progressives and the netroots and could get traction if there's no consensus on a new Iraq strategy soon.

[His major problem last time around was what a political novice he was. After two-plus years of media appearances and honing his message, I believe he could be an attractive candidate.]

More Than a Cameo: Tom Vilsack
I thought the Iowa governor's candidacy was a cameo until I saw him speak at Renaissance Weekend last year. He clearly gets that this will be an election about ideas. Vilsack will have a tough fight -- but I'm the last guy to bet against a governor from a small rural state.

[I've no opinion on Vilsack at this point.]

So, that's the people at this point. I would think over the next several weeks we'll see some of these people drop off and probably one or two join up. I'll track this list over the coming months and if anybody knows of any solid straw polls, drop me a line in the comments section.

2006-11-12T15:06:00.000-06:00

PROOF IN THE PUDDING

Over the past week, in a vain effort to make sense of their minority status in both houses of Congress, pundits and politicians alike continue to claim that the Democrats succeeded by moving far to the right and electing a whole slew of so-called Blue Dog Dems.

This has been shot down by any number of more learned bloggers on the left than me, but one thing that I haven't noticed is, basically, does what the various mouthpieces and talking heads really matter? Isn't the proof going to be in the voting? When Bush is no longer able to push along his conservative judges through the Judiciary Committee, will we still hear right wing pundits claiming their conservative views ultimately won out last Tuesday. When the various tax situations are sorted out so that the rich are paying more while the middle class receives more of a break, will fiscal conservatives pat the Blue Dogs on their respective backs for upholding the Bush tax cuts? When oversight returns to the Congress with both houses investigating various misdeeds overlooked and ignored by the GOP-controlled Congress, will conseratives still take solace in the moderate nature of this new Dem party? When Big Oil and Big Pharma lose their tax breaks (though subsidies for the former and Medicare D for the latter), will the financial know-it-alls still tout the far right Dems?

Ultimately, when the chips are down, this line of thought will be exposed as the empty rhetoric it is - a sad attempt by the right to make themselves feel better at having their asses handed to them last Tuesday.

2006-11-12T08:34:00.000-06:00

WE HAVE ARRIVED

NANCY PELOSI and SNL

Last night, Saturday Night Live did its part in recognizing the new world order now dawning in Washington. After years of tired John Kerry and Al Gore jokes, the show hit one out of the park with it's cold open featuring Kristen Wiig as Nancy Pelosi. As soon as I can find a video or link, I'll put it up, but it's basically a worst-case-scenario as far as the conservative fears over Pelosi becoming House Speaker as she brings her "San Francisco values" to the position two heartbeats from the presidency. The skit featured an excellent impression of Pelosi by Wiig and a leather-clad office assistant (in a role Will Forte should do more of because his Bush impression is nothing short of painful to watch most times) accompanied by his human ashtray.

About the only non-funny thing about it was the fact that some lonely conservative voter sitting home alone Saturday night turned to his dog and said, "Yep, that's what them dern Democrats have unleashed upon the U S of A. Bastards!"

Zingers from the Update desk:

"This week, on Tuesday night, in an ironic turnaround, Iraq brought regime change to the U.S."
- Amy Poehler

"Nancy Pelosi, the like Speaker of the House, had lunch at the White House with President Bush, though just to rub things in, she left early to have an abortion."
- Poehler

"Today's Veteran's Day, so that won't affect anyone in the White House."
- Seth Meyers

2006-11-12T02:31:00.000-06:00

MIRROR OF CHINA

"Just as midterm election results produced a new balance of power in the U.S. Congress and Senate yesterday morning, China announced that its sensitive trade surplus hit a record high last month -- up 27 per cent from a previous high of $18.8-billion (U.S.) in August.

In October alone, the surplus rose to $23.8-billion. For the first 10 months of the year, China's surplus totalled $113.6-billion, surpassing last year's $102-billion surplus for the year to date, said China's General Administration of Customs.

This point will be driven home again today with the release of new U.S. trade data, expected to show another huge trade deficit with China."

DemFromCT at Daily Kos has a post about the new populist bent of Dems, especially regarding fair trade vs. free trade. Something has got to be done, and we've got to make sure the new Congress does it.

This evening, I had a very interesting discussion with my nephew who has just recently returned from a trip to China. His company which makes something or other which involves metals, is negotiating with China as a supplier.

It's one thing to read about unfair trade practices and the plight of the laborors providing all of the "cheap" labor oversees, and another to encounter it first and second hand. He told me many things about China, some of which I'd like to share here.

(Note: This is a cross posting of a very large post of mine at Demokat, so I'm routing you over there to the permalink rather than eat up a huge space here at ALW.)

2006-11-11T17:26:00.000-06:00

NEW ROUND OF GOP STRAW POLLS

November Edition

It's that time of the month again, as I received my email notification of a new GOP straw poll.
Longtime readers to this blog, and I know that there are a couple of you, know that I'm a big fan of these polls. With the midterms finally over, we should be seeing an adjustment on who is a part of these polls, but for now, they basically have the same roster of candidates with one big exclusion (see below).

Before I get down the latest nitty-gritty, I will, as always, lay down the structure of the poll:There is a list of 11 candidates and there are three choices for each candidate; first choice, acceptable and unacceptable. Voters could only vote for one "first choice" but multiple "acceptable" or "unacceptable" results. Based on the ratings that those who took the polls gave themselves, there's a fairly strong representation of the very conservative section of the GOP in the poll.The potential candidates in the survey, listed in alphabetical order, are Sam Brownback, Bill Frist, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Chuck Hagel, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, George Pataki, Mitt Romney and Tom Tancredo. At the time of my viewing, there had been 12617 ballots cast. Poll results can be found here.

Please note that George Allen, never the most popular candidate in these things, has been removed from the list of nominees. Given his performance these past few months and his subsequent loss, I believe that jibes with the conventional wisdom that his chances at being president are somewhere around the territory of slim and none. In his place is newcomer Duncan Hunter, a Congressman from California.

It appears that Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani have again swapped places as far as "first choice selection goes. As of my viewing, Newt leads Rudy 26.1% to 24.9%. Both of these numbers are slightly higher than the previous numbers last month (24.2% and 22.7%), which may indicate that some voters are moving towards the "favorites." Romney again finds himself in third place with 20.2%, which mimics similar margins from last month. McCain slightly improved from last month, up from 3.5% to 5.1% - no small feat for the press' favorite Republican among these hardcore right voters. Pataki and Frist again bring up the rear, mirroring last month's results.

Scanning through the "acceptable" results, we find that Romney again holds the top slot with 65.7%, a drop from his 69.3% rating one month before. And while Newt leads among "first choice" selections, Rudy is much stronger in the acceptable area, 64.3% to 61.5%. As has been the case these past months, no candidate comes close to the "Big Three" at this point, with Tom Tancredo a distant fourth at 39.4%. Bringing up the rear are Frist and Pataki, reinforcing their poor first choice showing. Maverick McCain finds himself at 25.6%, a slight rise from October where his number was 22.3% (21% in September). So, while McCain is nowhere near a front runner, he is demonstrating some upward movement over the last couple of months.

Moving to the "unacceptable" category, we find that Bill Frist is clearly the most unpopular pick (having done himself no favors during his time as Majority Leader in the Senate) with 67.8%. Chuck Hagel and George Pataki also rating highly here as both are tied at 64.6%. Last month's top pick, McCain, moves up three notches, this time garnering 61.9% unacceptables, a drop from his 66.2% rating last month. At the bottom is Romney with only 17.5% unacceptables, with Rudy at 20.4% and Newt at 22.4%.

Again taking a glance at my darkhorse, Arkansas governor Mick Huckabee, his first choice votes notched up a bit as he's now at 1.4% (1.1 - October; 1.2 - September) - a miniscule improvement. His acceptables find him at 31.7 (34.2 - October; 37.6 - September), so he's definitely showing much downward movement. This may be a result of a lack of name recognition as he was not up for election for any office this past week and every bit of politically related news of late has been about the midterms. His unacceptables for November are 39.6% (37.1 - October; 38.1 - September). Not looking good for my darkhorse, but it's still very early. We'll see as the early announcers begin to make themselves known.

What it all means:
Though none of the Big Three have officially announced, based on some things I've read, Giuliani is a lock to run and now that Romney is out of the governor's office in Massachusetts, he's got time on his hands to kill. I've no info on Newt's intentions. Everyone else is just spinning their wheels. Now obviously, this will not be the whole field, but what the poll seems to indicate is that the other candidates have their work cut out for them as far as attracting the base, McCain especially. While his numbers have shown slight improvement, he still has a ways to go to get to the Big Three's numbers. Frist has made no secret about his desire to run (he actually took the time to fix a straw poll at a convention a few months ago to turn out in his favor), but based on these numbers, he'd be smarter to not waste his time. These straw poll takers (or as I've labeled them, PTA conservates for Politically and Technologically Active) do not like him, and who can blame them?

My three previous Straw Poll posts can be found here:

October
September
August

2006-11-11T16:35:00.000-06:00

FUN & GAMES

Here is a little game for the weekend. See if you can match the assinine statement with the ass:

1. "I don't think there's an ideological issue in this election at all."

2. "Is there anywhere you can find in this manure pile a pony for the Republicans?"

3. "One thing about these recounts, it is almost always an advantage to go in ahead."

4. "Men voting for Allen, that's football. Women voting for Webb, that's Iraq."

5. "It didn't help Sen. Santorum that his good buddy Joe Paterno [the Penn State football coach] has a broken leg and got hurt on Saturday. Maybe that was a precursor of what he's experienced."

6. Referring to the Harold Ford, Jr. campaign: "race is not an issue, despite the fact that you and other journalists have tried to inject it."

7. "Another victory for the Democrats, but not for the cause of liberalism."

8. "If Rick Santorum had been from the Redneck Riviera or Tennessee or Texas, he would have won going away tonight ... We are a nation divided by geography."

a) Bill Schneider
b) Chris Matthews
c) Brian Kilmeade
d) Joe Scarborough
e) Brit Hume
f) Freddie "The Beetle" Barnes
g) Bill Frist
h) Jeffrey Toobin

I'll publish the answer key tomorrow so you can check your media IQ. I'm sure it will surpass the IQ of the media.

If you can't wait, and want to see even more, go here.

2006-11-11T14:21:00.000-06:00

COOL AS CARLSON

Paul McLeary at CJR Daily has a (sadly) funny piece on the airheads, windbags, and downright gaseous so-called journalists one can find so easily on cable news. The comedic commentary stylings of Tucker Carlson an Chris Matthews are highlighted. Get this exchange between the two:

"CARLSON: The difference between East and West is the difference between America and Europe. Old and new. The newer states, the mountain West, for instance, California because it is a coastal state doesn't really count and neither does Oregon and neither does Washington.

MATTHEWS: Montana is hipper than California.

CARLSON: Colorado. I'm saying, it is actually less hip. But it is more -- that is the difference. The states that played out and decadent and depleted like Rhode Island ...

[further in the banter]

CARLSON: ... that is the difference. The old cultures versus the new culture.

MATTHEWS: The old cultures don't like this guy from Texas.

CARLSON: No, because they see him as radical and see him as religious. And that has always been the dividing line. People hate him because they see him as evangelical."

I mean, really, people. Who is more qualified to determine what is "hip" than Tucker and Matthews?

Just for starters, does anyone actually use the word "hip" anymore?

2006-11-11T09:08:00.000-06:00

FIRE THE BOOKER

MEET THE PRESS

This past Tuesday, the Democratic Party made history. In one fell swoop, the party of the people took back control of the House of Representatives and the Senate. They also did so without losing a single seat that was previously held by a Democrat, which is all but unheard of. And, in recognition of this most momentous occasion, our liberal press, in the form of Meet the Press, has scheduled exactly zero Democrats to appear.

Given the strong majority now enjoyed by the Democrats in the House, perhaps it might have been a good idea to interview someone like Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi or perhaps one of the candidates running for Majority Leader, Steny Hoyer or John Murtha. Think again. Equally frustrating is the fact that the election was viewed in many quarters as a repudiation of the Bush adminstration's running of the war in Iraq. With the fact of a Democratic Majority in the Congress and the anti-Iraq message sent, who does MtP choose to feature? None other than war supporter and minority party Republican John McCain and war supporter and non-Democrat Joe Lieberman.

I can think of no greater example of NOT having one's finger on the pulse of the public than these two bookings. Seriously, were there no Democrats willing to come on a discuss their plan for the direction of the 110th Congress? I understand that the mainstream media has an inexplicable hard-on for McCain (a erection not shared by most hard right Republicans), but what exactly does he truly have to offer in an interview? Aside from announcing his intentions to run for president in '08, having him on is a waste given that he is a member of the minority party and a supporter of a war policy that was widely repudiated by many Americans as they went to the polls last Tuesday. I suppose a case could be made for a Lieberman interview given his somewhat unique position in the Senate. It is not an interview that I would be interested in watching given that it will most likely be a retread of his statements in the past - namely a call for bipartisanship (though he obviously never misses a chance to practice said bipartisanship by jabbing at his mates among the Democrats) as he prances and preens at having snubbed his nose at the Democratic voters in Connecticut who decisively decided that he did not represent their interests any longer.

Overall, this is just a missed chance by our "liberal media" to feature the new majority's plans for America and instead choosing to partisans whose time in the limelight is quickly passing.

2006-11-10T17:37:00.000-06:00

WORST PEOPLE
IN THE WORLD

SPECIAL POST-ELECTION EDITION

Being the first casualty of the post 2006 midterm world we now find ourselves in, Donald Rumsfeld gets a mention this week. After seeming dodging yet another bullet as Bush gave him his highest support, Rummy was subsequently fired less than a week later. And that move sure did piss off more than a few on the right, who felt (perhaps correctly) that firing him earlier might have helped their chances of holding at least the Senate this past Tuesday. Though by no means the key cog of all that is wrong with the Bush team's foreign policy, he is certainly deserving of much of the blame. He will not be missed and I expect that we have not seen the last of Rumsfeld, whether he's appearing before congressional hearings or being charged with war crimes in Germany. So much the better.

Two of our favorite targets here at America's Least Wanted were removed from office this past week, so I think they should share a special mention here. I speak of course of George Felix Allen Jr. and Rick "Man-Dog-Sex" Santorum. They have combined for something like a dozen posts here at ALW and have provided me endless material, running the spectrum from calling a dark-skinned American "macaca" to suggesting that gay sex is akin to bestiality. While I am certainly pleased that they can no longer subject the country to their particular brand of morality and angry partisanship in the Senate, I will definitely miss their charming shooting-fish-in-a-barrel-ness quality that made them such easy targets around here.

The master of all things spin is apparently another casualty of last Tuesday's elections, Mr. Ken Mehlman. Yes, I understand that it's his job to spin his party's candidates in the best possible light, but to do so to the point of absurdity strains any credibility one may still have, which, in Mehlman's case, isn't all that much. Case in point was election night, Mehlman continued to spin that Senate nominee Michael Steele was going to make history by being elected. This after the race had already been called hours before and the vote tallies were solidly backing up the early call. Oh, and there was that little bit about him being outed on Larry King's show by Bill Maher. Being a citizen of the blogosphere for years, this was no big surprise as rumors had floated around for some time, but I'm certain that somewhere in this country, an ignorant conservative voter felt betrayed as one of them sissy homo-sexuals had sabotaged the GOP from within.

Of course, no election day top five would be complete without a special George W. Bush mention. To say that the guy has had a bad week would be an enormous understatement. First he loses the House, has to fire his Secretary of Defense, loses the Senate, has to go to his old man to bail him out of yet another failed business, this time in the form of James Baker and Robert Gates, and finally, disgrace of all disgraces, has to use nasty words like bipartisanship while sitting next to that "San Francisco Liberal" Nancy Pelosi. Of course, one of those first acts of bipartisanship is to again nominate the highly divisive John Bolton after recess-appointing him last year because Dems refused to accept him back then. Methinks someone should get his Highness a dictionary.

Now, I turn to one final group, the biggest losers this past week - the Conservate Noise Machine. After a string of electoral wins over the last several years, they firmly believed they had entered into a world where Republicans would hold a permanent majority. In doing so, they failed to follow the Boy Scouts' most basic tenet - be prepared. And prepared they certainly were not as they now find themselves running around muttering any and all sorts of nonsense in a vain attempt to make sense of the strange new world they now find themselves occupying. Whether it's Rush Limbaugh lying to his listeners by claiming that though their team had lost, he didn't really care all that much because they were losers anyway; or Hugh Hewitt, who categorically refuses to accept certain aspects of reality as they do not fit into his odd worldview. In his addled brain, Bush has never been more powerful and should continue pursuing his radical (though not to Hugh) agenda. And of course, no mention of Bush's deluded minions would be complete without a special nod to Jonah Goldberg. His ramblings about Bush spending 24 hours in a sweat lodge then hunting a bear with a knife and eating its still-beating heart and throwing the bloody carcass onto Helen Thomas is the stuff of legend. Actually, I would wholeheartedly support Bush doing something like Jonah described, as there would never be a better case made in regards to Bush's mental incapacitation. A quick impeachment of DICK Cheney and we have ourselves President Nancy Pelosi. And if you think the righties are nuts about losing Congress, imagine their reaction to that!

2006-11-10T09:35:00.000-06:00

WHAAAAAAA?

HUGH HEWITT

It's been a while since I've dipped my toe in the wacky pool that is Hugh Hewitt. But this uttering requires my utmost attention. In a recent column Hewitt spends several paragraphs flagellating any Republican within striking distance over the loss of both the House and the Senate this past week (though he does hold out hope of a Burns suprise in Montana; something that sadly (for him) did not come to pass). There is one passage, however, that almost made me toss my cookies (from Townhall via T-Bogg):

President Bush will not flag in the pursuit of the war, and Senator Santorum is now available for a seat on the SCOTUS should one become available.

Um... what? I have got to start reading Hewitt more often; the guy is a goldmine! Does he truly believe that Santorum would stand any chance at all of ever being a Supreme Court nominee, much less a confirmed member? A key component to any potential Supreme Court nominee these days is an ability to obfuscate one's actual views on a myriad of topics, so as to not "pre-judge" a case that the person might have to rule on one day. Santorum's views on any number of subjects is crystal clear, especially Roe v. Wade, the cause celebre of the right wing nation.

However, I did enjoy the turn of phrase Hewitt employed, "... Santorum now is available" afer losing his seat in the Senate. As if that's the only reason why Bush didn't turn to Ricky the last time there was a vacancy - because he already had a job.

One of the major reasons why it was so important for the Democrats to regain control of the Senate - so that Bush could no longer jam through these horrendous right-wing idealogues into our nation's courts, most especially the Highest Court. The days of stacking the Supreme Court with judges intent on overturning Roe v. Wade are past. But, like much of reality these days, Hewitt is having a difficult time accepting this new world order.

2006-11-10T08:16:00.000-06:00

HO. LEE. SH*T.

JONAH GOLDBERG

The following is from Jonah Goldberg, editor-at-large of the National Review Online and bigtime conservative commentator. I can only assume that he was mentally altered from two nights worth of hard boozing as he attempted to deal with the traumatic loss of both chambers of Congress by the Republicans.

How Bush Should Handle Loss

I think James Baker and Dick Cheney should take Bush out to the woods around Camp David. After 24 hours in a sweat lodge, he should be given only a loin cloth, a hunting knife and a canteen of water. Bush should then set out to track and kill a black bear, after which he should eat its still beating heart so he can absorb its spirit. He should then fly back to Washington in Marine 1. His torso still scratched from the bear's claws, his face bloodied and steaming in the November chill, he should immediately give a press conference at which he throws the bearskin on the front row of the press corps, completely enveloping Helen Thomas, declaring, "I'm not going anywhere."

This will send important messages to Democrats and well as to our enemies overseas, who are no doubt high-fiving as we speak.

Yep, that'd sure send a message alright. A message that the leader of the free world and those he chooses to associate with are totally and completely off their freaking rockers. Seriously, has Jonah completely lost it here? The mental image of Bush running around in a loin cloth is something that will probably stay with me longer than I'd like it to, but the whole scratched torso thing and bearskin enveloping Helen Thomas really push this thing beyond anything even remotely sane.

I suppose we all deal with loss in the political realm differently. As I noted yesterday, I shut out politics for about six months after the '04 elections. Jonah apparently chooses to go batshit crazy. I'm just trying to wrap my head around the whole thing; it doesn't read like it's metaphorical so I can only assume that he's serious. And that's damn frightening.

Go back and read it and then ask yourself where Michelle Malkin gets off calling liberals unhinged.

(h/t Crooks and Liars)

2006-11-09T17:23:00.000-06:00

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

RUSH LIMBAUGH

Finally, finally Rush is free! Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the bloviating one can finally speak his mind. And in doing so, he flat out admitted to his faithful dittoheads that he's been lying to them this election season. On Wednesday, Rush told his listeners, "I no longer am going to have to carry the water for people who I don't think deserve having their water carried." Meaning he's no longer going to have to shill for those Republicans he doesn't feel are shillable. So, for all these months, Rush has been pushing candidates he doesn't feel are worthy of his attention. He's been selling these candidates on his listeners as the best America has to offer were decidedly less so in his eyes. These men and women he championed as the group that would help perpetuate the permanent Republican majority fell short to Limbaugh.

So, how do the legions of dittoheads deal with this apparent betrayal by the corpulent one? Will they truly believe him the next time he carries the water for a candidate? Eh, probably. I tend not to go to dittoheads for intellectual honesty.

2006-11-09T15:53:00.000-06:00

YEAH, THAT'LL WORK

TED HAGGARD

A man who has confessed to dealing with repression issues for much of his life and was exposed allegedly soliciting sex and purchasing methanphedemines from a male prostitute has decided to do something about it.

He's going to supress it some more. From a local television station:

There will be prayer, and perhaps the laying on of hands. There will be counseling and a confession. And there will be advice, confrontation and rebuke from "godly men" appointed to oversee the spiritual "restoration" of the Rev. Ted Haggard.

After tumbling from the pinnacle of the American evangelical movement amid allegations he snorted meth and cavorted with a male prostitute, Haggard has agreed to a rehabilitation process that could last three to five years.

So a guy who has failed in suppressing his true nature just needs to work harder and pray in order to solve his problem. Instead of embracing himself the way God "created" him, he instead wishes to deny himself. What a healthy lifestyle that must be. I'm not saying he should journey to the next Southern Decadence, but living your life going from one level of denial to an even greater one isn't going to solve the core issue he faces. And even after this long term "rehabilitation" process, will anyone be able to look at him as he preaches on the evils of homosexuality without going, "Yeah, okay."

Good luck with that, Ted.

2006-11-09T08:02:00.000-06:00

DAWNING OF A BRAND NEW DAY

And here I thought Tuesday night/Wednesday morning was the be all and end all of great political nights. Then I woke up Wednesday morning. Here's how my day went...

I woke up from a couple hours of zzzz's after a seven hour live blogging session the night before. My wife, who had gone to bed at around 9pm had no idea of any of the results. She asked me how things went and I was able to tell her with much pride that the Democrats had regained control of the House.

A few hours later and I'm on the road, flipping through various talk radio channels waiting for Bush's press conference. I stop by Laura Ingraham and it honestly sounded like she was in a bit of denial in that the reality of her situation hadn't really dawned on her. What I found curious about her comments (and others on the right) is the insistence that the GOP must reinterpret itself and get back to its roots. It's been so long that I'm really not sure what those roots are, and with this crop of criminals still in power, I do not believe they're the ones to re-embrace the core values of the Republican Party. But I digress...

I listened in on much of Bush's press conference, as I blogged about earlier. I don't have anything to add, other than to comment about one little thing. Do we call his party the Republic Party? Then why does he feel the need to refer to our party as the Democrat Party? I've heard DeLay delight in using this turn of phrase but this was the first that I'd heard Bush say it. It bugs me; really gets under my skin. Which is probably why he does it. After all, he's basically an overgrown child who just got his toys taken away for being a bad boy. His retaliation is to call us a poopoohead in order to make himself still feel in control. I'm getting a headache as we speak what with all the eyerolling I'm doing at this second. Moving on...

As I was saying, Tuesday was great, but Wednesday was shaping up to be even better as the news of Don Rumsfeld's resignation broke. This was completely out of left field for almost everyone, especially after Bush's vote of confidence and DICK Cheney's insistence that the will of the people doesn't matter in the least; full speed ahead and all that. The number of offenses committed by Rumsfeld are far too numerous for one such as me to name; I leave it to others with a more encyclopedic knowledge of such things. A big one that stayed in my head was his threat to fire anyone who dared talk about something as silly as postwar planning in Iraq. Or how about when he said, shortly after the fall of Baghdad, that the Iraqis, being free and all, were free to commit crimes because democracy is messy. Well done, genius.

As I thought the day could get no better, the news of the Montana Senate race being called for Tester brightened me up some more. I knew that Jim Webb was holding onto a decent lead in Virginia, but Tester's tally had me slightly nervous. To have the race called (though not officially certified by the Secretary of State) was a pretty big deal. Hours later, news of Webb securing Virginia's seat (though canvassing is still taking place) meant that the Dems had secured the United States Senate as well as the House. We had taken back the Congress!

Whereas I would have been fairly satisfied securing just the House, nailing down the Senate (even by the slimmest of margins) meant something very important; Bush would not be able to force through another Samuel Alito onto the Supreme Court. Granted, the Dems on the Judiciary Committee could certainly drop the ball, but it appears that any appointment to the Supreme Court made during the final two years of his presidency would more than likely be of the moderate variety.

So, here I sit, typing away and giddy as a school girl (are school girls more giddy than school boys; does anyone know the etymology of that phrase?). Two years ago, I was so sick at where the country was that I had given up on politics. I refused to read a blog or a newspaper; I rarely watched any news. I figured that it was apparent that many of the American people who had voted for Bush's second term did so out of ignorance, so I wished to live in the land of ignorance. It is bliss, or so I have heard. My exile lasted about six months; then the Terri Schiavo story captured my interest. It was the first huge mistake the Republicans had made in years. It was quickly followed up the the Dems refusal to go along with Bush's plans for social security, which showed me that while I had given up the fight, there were those who still believed and fought. Slowly, I started to reaclimate myself to the world of politics. It wasn't always pretty over the ensuing eighteen months, but the prize we now find in our hands just about made the journey worth it.

We've got a helluva lot of work to do in order to fix all that has been done to this nation. The Democratic majorities in both houses seem to have a roadmap for picking up Uncle Sam and dusting him off. Time will tell if we'll be able to set things right; Bush and his rubberstamp Congress have inflicted some serious wounds, but controlling the people's branch of government is a good place to start.

2006-11-08T16:42:00.000-06:00

RUNNING OUT OF TIME

GEORGE FELIX ALLEN JR.

George Felix Allen Jr.'s time may be running short in an effort to secure a recount in his Virginia Senate race against presumptive winner Jim Webb. By Virginia law, he appears to be entitled to a recount, but his Republican colleagues seem less inclined to support him in the effort. According to Hotline:

Top Republicans in Washington will give Sen. George Allen a few days to take stock of his legal and political options before beginning to pressure him to concede to James Webb. Senior Republican officials and White House aides believe that Webb won the race. Several outside advisers to Allen want him to make the decision quickly; others in his campaign want to make sure that there's no chance a cache of new votes will turn up.

With questionable support behind the effort, this looks to be the death knell of a Republican-controlled Congress. If even White House personnel believe that Felix's goose is cooked, I'd say his days are numbered. It's amazing that Felix has gone from a strong contender for his party's nomination for president in 2008 to a dead-in-the-water politico.

This is truly a new day in Washington. Bush and the minority party Republicans in both houses need to get on board or get out of the way.

2006-11-08T15:44:00.000-06:00

THE EMPEROR HAS NO TEETH

GEORGE W. BUSH

I'll get to the Rummy resignation later, but I wanted to hit on the Bush press conference today. In the past, I've had ... issues with Bush. To even hear him speak caused a great anger and disgust to rise up into the back of my throat. I swear it was involuntary as I would have given anything not to feel such intense disdain for someone just by hearing the sound of their voice.

But today? Today was different. Today was much different and it felt good. As I listened to the press conference I no longer felt that same pit in my stomach. The best word I could use to describe what I felt today was ... pity. Not necessarily for Bush himself. Rather it had more to do with how pathetic he sounded now. His voice no longer holds sway over me. He's like the abominable snow monster from that Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer special they show every Christmas. Sure, Bumby looked all scary with his big sharp teeth and menacing grown. But in the end, Yukon Cornelius and Hermy the Elf who wished to be a dentist detoothed the big white baddy. After that, Bumby was a pussycat. Robbed of his choppers, the monster was impotent. That's George W. Bush now. His sharp teeth, namely a compliant Republican Congress that performed no oversight and rubberstamped his every whim, have been removed from his arsenal. And now? Now he's not so scary anymore.

As to the content of his comments, Bush used words that I don't recall him using in the past; words like bipartisanship. He must have used the word twenty times. Whether his words match up to reality remains to be seen, but feeble attempt at effort was there. Also, "decider" is now apparently out, "assessor" is in; as in this paraphrase of a sentence he spoke: "We need to assess things as assessing is what we need to do in order for there to be an assessment." I'm not kidding; he really did say something to that effect.

Bush flat out admitted that he lied to the press during the parts I heard; namely his assertion last week that Rumsfeld was totally safe and would be on the job for the rest of Bush's term. That turned out to be categorically false, not because Rummy resigned necessarily, but because this has apparently been in the works for some time, as in, well before he gave is vote of confidence to Rummy. He claims he did so in order to move onto the next question, but there are other ways of deflecting a question that are less definitive than what Bush did last week. Given his flat out lie, I'm curious if the peeps in the press will be willing to accept Bushie at face value so much anymore (not that this if the first time he's lied to them; this is just the first time he's been caught since the New World Order started last night).

Bush lamented that he hadn't been as successful as he would have liked in his mission to change the tone in Washington (a bogus promise made six years ago). An astute reporter snidely questioned whether Bush's comments last week about a win for the Dems is a victory for the terrorists was in keeping with his ongoing efforts to change the tone. Classic.

Anyway, that's all that comes to mind right now. I was listening on my satellite radio so I wasn't able to take in all his tics and movements. As I figured, he seemed to get testier as the presser continued; the press seeming to construct something of a backbone over the last 24 hours. Either that, or it was just so damn simple to shoot the toothless Bumby in a barrel that Bush has become.

2006-11-08T13:32:00.000-06:00

RUMSFELD FELLED

He's GONE! Funny thing, you see, the Prez sez he's been thinking about letting Rummy go for weeks now. Uh-huh. That poor bastard just cannot stop lying. It's a pathological thing now. Anyone who continues to lie knowing full well that every living soul on earth knows he is lying, is the most supreme example of a pathological liar ever demonstrated.

I'm sure Paul will have much more to say, just wanted to post this breaking news. There is to be a news conference about 3pm with Bush, Rumsfeld, and Robert Gates (oh lordy!), former CIA director and the new Secretary of Defense.

2006-11-08T09:15:00.000-06:00

WHAT A NIGHT

Even though I finished up my live blogging at about 1 am, I still stayed up til about two or so hoping for a definitive answer out of Montana. So needless to say, I exhausted after over six hours of live blogging. That was my first time doing it and I enjoyed it overall, but that probably had more to do with the results than the actual act. Still, for those of you who came by and checked me out, thanks.

So, where are we at today? Back in control of at least one house of Congress, that's where! Now I'm just looking forward to heading out to my car and tuning into some rightie talk just to listen to go all Jonestown on their listeners. As I noted throughout the live blogging, this night was historic. The Democrats did not give up a single seat to the Republicans in the House or the Senate. As it stands right now, according to the DCCC, we have picked up 28 an amazing 28 seats and more could be coming. Truly historic. I know that the GOP looks back fondly on 1994 with their Republican Revolution, and now the Dems can point to 2006 as the year when sanity and accountability returned to Washington.

As for the Senate, I'm sure you're all aware that two races, Montana and Virginia, are too close to call at this point and will probably go the recount way. I'm comfortable with that as both Dems, Webb and Tester, are currently holding leads and it's always better to have a lead going into a recount then be the guy trailing. Just ask Al Gore.

Some quick individual House thoughts - As I noted before, it looks like Mean Jean Schmidt will still be in the House to kick around, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. ... Joe Sestak smacked down Curt Weldon in Pennsylvania 07. You'll recall Weldon, among his numerous other offenses, actually attacked Sestak for bringing his very ill daughter to an out-of-state facility for treatment. Classy dude. ... Double Amputee and Iraq War veteran could not break through her very Republican district in Illinois 06, but she lost by a small margin so we may see her again in two years. ... Another person to kick around is the virulently anti-gay Marilyn Musgrave, who survived her challenge against Angie Paccione in Colorado 04. Musgrave in the one who thinks that gay marriage is THE most important issue facing America today. While this wingnut didn't go down in defeat, at least her power is vastly diminished in a Democratically control House. ... The fight in Wyoming against the cripple and the woman who wanted to smack that cripple hasn't been called yet as Barbara Cubin (the slapper) leads Gary Trauner by a miniscule 822 votes. Granted, this is Wyoming where less than 200,000 votes total were cast, but it still quite close as 1% of precincts have failed to report. ... You want proof that every single vote counts, head up to Connecticut 02 where Democrat Joe Courtney leads incumbent Republican Rob Simmons by a razor thin 173 votes out of 242,000 total votes cast. 100% of precincts have reported, and this is obviously in recountville, but much like the results in Virginia and Montana, it's better to enter a recount in the lead, even a small one.

Up next, Bush is giving a press conference around lunchtime today. The smart move would be to be very concilliatory and such and I'm certain that's how he'll start off, but once the questions start flying you just know the impetuous man/child is going to rear his ugly head. He'll be impatient and jerky and overly demonstrative like a child who just had a toy taken away. It should be a sight to see.

Anyway, I'm off to work (my job I actually get paid for). A good car ride will give me some time to digest the enormity of what went down last night. It feels good to be a Dem today. See you all in a few hours.

Oh, one more thing, thanks to Kat and her odd sleeping patterns as she was able to continue posting long after I went to bed. Based on some numbers I've seen, we had numerous visitors throughout the night (which is unusual given the size of my readership) so I'm glad they had some new stuff to read, including the nice Santorum smackdown below. Thanks, Kat.

2006-11-08T04:19:00.000-06:00

SICK OF SANTORUM

I've had it with the canonization of Rick Santorum. Personally, I haven't given a rat's ass about him. I know he was a specific target to defeat, and that's all I cared about. But, after listening to all the stomach-churning praise of him on CNN by partisan commentators (J.C. Watts, Bill Bennett) and not such a little much from supposedly news people (John King), and later to hear Tweety on MSNBC talk about how "real" he is and how he could be a Presidential contender, I decided to look up this "saintly" man's voting record.

My, my, my. This is a saint to them, eh? This is the man they think should run for President.

Rick Santorum is anti-choice, anti-civil rights, anti-gay, anti-women, anti-minority, anti-poor people, anti-working man, pro-business, pro-military, anti-education, anti-environment, pro-Christian Coalition, anti-fair trade, anti-national security, pro-corruption, pro-lobbyists, anti-voter, pro-gun, pro-crime, anti-social security, anti-seniors, anti-public health, pro-pharmaceutical companies, anti-union, anti-livable wage, and, unquestionably and extremely PRO-IRAQ WAR while still wanting to do business with pro-terrorism business entities. DAMN!!

I'm cross posting this and I've posted his voting record here. He's a fucking creep and we are well rid of him.

2006-11-08T03:00:00.000-06:00

LOOKS LIKE
WE MADE IT

We won't have a definitive result out of Montana until 5am to 7am Mountain time, but the remaining votes to be counted and/or recounted are from Democratic areas, so it looks like our lead will hold and Tester will win.

That makes 5.

We've won Virginia. That makes 6.

So, we have won the Senate, in addition to the House.
Unfortunately, Sore Loser Allen may be able to challenge the count.

We just have to keep them from stealing the Senate.

2006-11-08T02:01:00.000-06:00

TICK TOCK TICK

UPDATE (3:37amEST) - MT - 78% in, 5,639 Tester lead

Still waiting for Burns to concede to Tester in MT.... 70% in, vote difference 5,752, Tester leading. C'mon, Conrad. Concede. YouTube done you in. Admit it. Don't make me come out there.

2006-11-08T01:19:00.000-06:00

1/2 of 1% DIFFERENTIAL

UPDATE (2:30am): They are counting provisional ballots and absentee ballots. The recount will be in two weeks if Sore Loser requests it. MSNBC is saying the lawyers will spread across the state starting tomorrow to try to find irregularities. They will try to buy this, one way or another, mark my words.

With 99% of votes counted, Webb is leading Allen by almost 12,000. It's still under the 1/2 of 1% difference though, which means Allen, the Sore Loser, can ask for a recount to be paid for by the state.

Still, he'll do so as a Sore Loser. Let me hear you chant now, Sore Loser, Sore Loser, Sore Loser!! Keep it up. All day, every day, until we've won.

2006-11-08T01:13:00.000-06:00

WHAT IF?

Tim Russert just uttered the most foul "what if" I can think of.

"What if" it is 51 - 49 in favor of the Democrats (which include Lieberman as Dem) and Lieberman goes over to the Republicans. Ye Gad!

2006-11-08T01:09:00.000-06:00

MO IS OURS

MSNBC has awarded MO to McCaskill, and immediately reports that Talent has conceded. Hoo-rah!

2006-11-07T19:30:00.000-06:00

ELECTION NIGHT BLOGGING

UPDATE (1:05 am): McCaskill's on over at CNN and it sure sounds to me like a victory speech, though there's still 12% of the vote out there. Her lead has increased throughout the last hour and she's now up to almost a 40,000 vote lead. Conversely, Talent was just on and he and his crowd were much more subdued. He's got the look in his eyes that the Dems have had the last few years. Looks good on him.

Montana has reported 64% and Tester is leading by just under 10,000.

I think I'm headed to bed. It'll be nice to put my head on a pillow with dreams of a functioning government and oversight and accountability dancing in my head. I can only imagine what the right wingers are dealing with as they lay down, as most of them have. Actually, I don't have to imagine; I've dealt with what they are feeling now the last few elections. I'd feel bad for them, except I don't.

I hope to wake up with a Dem majority in the Senate to go along with the House. If it happens, who becomes Majority Leader? I don't see Reid staying on, but I could be wrong.

Ugh, must get sleep. Good night, and thanks to my readers for hanging with me.

UPDATE (12:45 am): Over on MSNBC, Jack Murtha has staked his claim to the Majority Leader position in the House. He talked really tough on Bush and Iraq. He should be effective and he claims to have almost enough support for the post. I recall some right wingers were giddy in anticipation of the "traitor" getting beat in his election. He won by 20 points.

McCaskill has opened it up a bit more over in Missouri. She's now up by over 18,500 with 84% reporting.

Montana continues to tighten somewhat as Tester still leads Burns, now by 10,700 votes with 59% reporting.

White House spokesman Tony Snow said the outcome of the elections, was "not what we would've hoped." Gosh, ya think? And here I thought Rove had the math on this election.

UPDATE (12:25 am): Schadenfreude moment - as I mentioned Malkin's efforts to buck up the troops with an outdated Talent lead, she's since updated, "Well, that was short-lived." Oh, it feels good to be a Dem tonight!

Latest House numbers have the Dems picking up 23 seats. They have not lost a single seat. Let me repeat that - THEY HAVE NOT LOST A SINGLE SEAT. That is historic.

We're up to 81% reporting in Missouri and McCaskill is up by about 13,200 on Talent.

No movement in Virginia as we're still at 99%.

Montana has tightened a bit (as polls suggested throughout the campaign). Tester still leads 52-45 with 52% reporting.

UPDATE (12:10 am): McCaskill got her lead back, and then some. 80% reporting that she now leads Talent by about 14,000 points. That's a good number this late. You can just taste the Senate....

Michelle Malkin is sad over at her site. She just reported that Talent is leading as of 15 minutes ago and then writes, "Trying to give you some good news here...." Just wait til she reports the new numbers; her readers will be suicidal.

Webb was on over at CNN and he's feeling good about where he's at, going so far as to claim that it's good to win. He's in a good position, that's for sure. But lawyers make everything nasty so I hope the Dems have wheels on the ground ready to fight to the end on this. Let's not see a repeat of Florida 2000.

UPDATE (11:55 pm): The panel on MSNBC brought up an interesting point that I hadn't thought about what with everything else going on. If the Dems gain control of the Senate, Bush will not be able to push through another conservative judge to the Supreme Court in the event of a vacancy. That's a huge deal.

Also, the numbers I had on McCaskill seem to have been some sort of glitch/error over on CNN's page. Instead, they're only showing 71% reporting and Talent is in the lead with 48,000 votes. Wish I knew where those numbers came from.

Cubin retook the lead in Wyoming 01 with 95% reporting. She holds about an 800 vote lead.

Musgrave continues to lead in Colorado over Paccione by about 6400 votes (47% reporting).

Double amputee Tammy Duckworth lost her bid for Congress in Illinois 06. Too bad.

UPDATE (11:45 pm): McCaskill has taken the lead in Missouri. She leads by about 1200 votes with 74% reporting.
Tester continues to lead Burns by 10 percentage points (31% reporting).
The count remains at 99% in the Webb/Allen race. As I noted earlier, apparently many votes still need to be counted in Fairfax County, which I heard skews heavily for Webb.

I cannot believe that we could be looking at a Democratic controlled Senate, but we're at the threshold.

UPDATE (11:40 pm): Looks like we've still got Mean Jean Schmidt to kick around in Ohio 02. Try as hard as we can to get the shrew out, it isn't happening. At least she's out of the majority.

Bob Corker is being called the "apparent winner" in Tennessee as all the votes cast today have supposedly been counted. Not one I expected the Dems to pick up, but it would have been nice. Given this, we need a sweep of the remaining Senate seats to gain a majority. Things look promising in Virginia and Montana; Missouri's got a little ways to go (McCaskill trails by 48,000 with 69% reporting, a small improvement).

George Allen is going to bed. He appeared in front of his supporters and he basically told them, "See you tomorrow." If I were in that close of a race, I wouldn't be leaving. On MSNBC, it's been reported that 33,000 uncounted votes still to come from Fairfax County, which would be a big gain for Webb given the locality.

UPDATE (11:20 pm): Tester has a solid lead (55%-43%) over Burns in Montana, but that's with only 24% reporting so it's still pretty early out there in Big Sky.

McCaskill still trails Talent with 62% reporting. She's back 52,500 votes but she's staying close. I don't have location breakdown of where the votes are coming from, but it seems (at least according to tonight) that urban areas are taking longer to report than rural areas. This may not be the case in Missouri, but if it is, that's a good sign for McCaskill.

I'm keeping an eye on some congressional races, like Colorado 04 where anti-gay incumbent Marilyn Musgrave holds a slim lead over Angie Paccione (under 2000 votes w/28% reporting) but it's been back and forth for most of the night.
Also I'm keeping tabs on Wyoming 01 (yes, WY-01; I'm just that sad) as Gary Trauner (D) currently leads Barbara Cubin (R) by about 3500 votes with 87% reporting. Some info - Trauner is handicapped and gets around in a wheelchair. After a debate Cubin threatened to slap Trauner and would have done so if he wasn't in that chair. Nice woman. Glad she's going down.

UPDATE (10:55 pm): Ben Cardin continues to open the gap on Steele, much to the chagrin of Mehlman and company. Michelle Malkin has been whining about this all night as she felt it was projected too early for Cardin. I'll let you know if she mea culpas when they final numbers are in.

Also, over in Virginia, 99% of precincts have reported and Webb has taken the lead! He's currently 2376 votes ahead. While I'm not absolutely certain, it seems that Webb gains about 3-5-6000 votes for every percentage points. This one is tough to watch. Every vote counts, people.

According to the DCCC's numbers, we're three numbers clear of a majority. Everything after that 15 was gravy but I'll take all that we can get.

UPDATE (10:35 pm): Webb continues to creep up as he is now less than 7000 votes from Allen. Out over two million votes cast, this one is amazing.

The people have spoken in South Dakota, and they have collectively crapped on the anti-choice wingers in the state. Some quick background - the state legislature passed a draconion anti-abortion law that was intended to take on Roe v. Wade in the not too distant future. The voters of the state got the measure on the ballot in order to head this off and they have resoundingly said no way. Well done.

Ken Mehlman, god bless the little weasel, continues to spin on CNN. The Dems have won the House, yet he still won't concede. He claims that there are still folks voting (really?) and they shouldn't be swayed by early pronouncements. Oh, and he's still pimping Steele, though he was projected to lose over an hour ago. Though Steele "led" for much of the early returns, Cardin has taken a 20,000 vote lead with 56% reporting.

UPDATE (10:25 pm): Jim Webb has closed the gap a ton in the closing moments of the Senate race in Virginia as he's now within 11,000 votes of Allen with 97% reporting. This thing appears headed for a recount and control of the Senate might not be known for a couple of weeks.

Tom DeLay's seat in Texas 22 has fallen to the Dems as Nick Lampson defeated Shelly Sekula-Gibbs, who was forced into being a write-in candidate.

FORMER House Speaker Denny Hastert addresses his supporters as he won his reelection bid in Illinois. Not a big shocker as to him winning; I just wanted to call him FORMER House Speaker. He says he'll be addressing his lack of house speakership tomorrow. I can't wait to here that one!

Over in the Tennessee Senate race, I found this from Hotline (h/t Think Progress):

While East TN GOP strongholds Hamilton (Chattanooga) and Knox Co have largely reported, Dem bulwarks Davidson (Nashville) and Shelby (Memphis) have still reported less than 50% of their precincts. Hamilton is Corker’s base (he was Mayor of Chattanooga) and Shelby is home to Ford, as well as the the biggest trove of black votes in the state.

UPDATE (10:10 pm):

DEMOCRATS WIN
CONTROL OF HOUSE!!!

CNN officially projects this. Times they are a changing. Cannot wait to watch the fallout over the next couple of days. It is going to be downright ugly in righty-land and the White House.
Oversight, here we come!

UPDATE (10:05 pm): Done a little trolling over at the righty blogs and all they have to hang onto is the hope that the various exit polls that are allowing for early projections in many races are wrong. That's all they've got at this point. It's funny to watch the metaphorical steam shooting from their ears as they bitch and moan about it.

More House news - Illinois 17 goes to Democrat Phil Hare.
CNN projects Clay Shaw (R) falling to Ron Klein in Florida 22.
CNN also projects Kristen Gillibrand over John Sweeney in New York 20. Sweeney had some domestic violence issues that were hanging over his head the last few weeks.

Not sure about your math, but that should be more than enough to put us over the top. Congrats to the Dems!

UPDATE (9:55 pm): More house stuff as Dems move another couple of seats closer to the majority in the House. North Carolina 11 goes to Heath Shuler, a former NFL quarterback (and Saints QB, though he was a much better college QB at Tennessee then he ever was a pro).
Over in New York 24, Mike Arcuri defeated Raymond Meier by a solid margin.
Mark Foley's old seat has fallen to the Dems as Tim Mahoney gains the seat of Joe Negron.
And out west, Gabrielle Giffords defeated Randy Graf in Arizona 08. Graf is the dumbass who advocates allowing people to bring guns into bars.
Two seats to the majority.
The Dems have still not lost a single seat. If this holds, it's an historic event.

UPDATE (9:45 pm): House update - 2 more seats fall to Dems as Joe Sestak defeats evil pig Curt Weldon in Pennsylvania 07 and Christopher Carney knocks out adulterer and mistress strangler Don Sherwood in Pennsylvania 10. That leaves the Dems six seats to a majority.

A talking head looking at info from Virginia thinks that the Senate race will be going to a recount as some of the late reporting precincts should slant towards Webb, who's slightly behind right now.

UPDATE (9:35 pm): Bill Bennett on CNN is saying that there won't be a tidal wave for Dems. I'll monitor that and let you know if Billy is having himself a big plate of crow later tonight.

Bob Schieffer from CBS says this: “We knew this was going to be a bad night for the Republicans, but it may turn out to be their worst nightmare.” (h/t Think Progress)

South Carolina, Virginia and Tennessee have all approved bans on same sex marriage. What I wonder is what will rile up the base in '08 if the conservatives are blowing a big bullet like this in '06. You can only pass so many anti-gay bans and amendments per state, right?

Senate update:
Allen leads by about 31,000 with 93% reporting. It's gonna take something special for this to turn.
Tennessee - Corker is up 62,000 over Ford with 64% reporting.
Missouri - Talent is up 45,000 over McCaskill with 22% reporting.
Montana - Burns is up 125 votes over Tester with 1% reporting. Obviously this is early.

No updates for the House.

UPDATE (9:15 pm): Time seems to be running out for Webb though Allen's lead is "down" to 25,000 with 88% reporting.

66,000 is the margin over in Tennessee for Corker over Ford with 54% reporting.

Missouri sees Talent up by about 33,000 with 16% reporting. Still pretty early here. I see a repeat of Virginia as far as how close it goes throughout the night.

Nothing out of Montana yet, though the polls closed 15 minutes ago.

We've officially grabbed six seats in the House with 9 more to a majority. We took Kentucky 03, Connecticut 05, Ohio 18 and Indiana 02, 08 and 09. So far, no Dem seat has fallen to the GOP in either the House or the Senate, so that's definitely a good sign. (I've had to change this section four times since I started writing this update - it continues to look very good for the Dems.)

UPDATE WITHIN AN UPDATE: House number changed again as we're almost halfway to regaining the House as Paul Hodes (D) beat incumbent Charles Bass in New Hampshire 02.

UPDATE (9:00pm): Virginia is maddeningly close as Allen leads Webb by about 30,000 votes with 84% reporting. If the final tally is under 10,000 than an automatic recount kicks in. Depending on what side you hear, either northern Virginia has reported numbers or is still in the process of reporting numbers. If the latter is the case, that's good news for Webb; otherwise Allen could hang on.

As for Tennessee, Bill Ford continues to hang in there, though I would not know the geographical breakdown of the state like I do Virginia. He's about 45,000 down with 41% reporting, but it's closer than some polls might indicate. This would shock me if Ford were able to nab this.

Schadenfreude moment - Santorum just conceded, and graciously so. His kids are puffy-eyed and sad, but I just cannot stop smiling. I'm kind of a prick like that.

UPDATE (8:30pm): ANOTHER DEM PICKUP - Sheldon Whitehouse is the projected winner over moderate Republican Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island, according to CNN. This night continues to move nicely into the Dem column. After three election cycles of disappointment, this night of returns is a easily more enjoyable to watch.

Three seats down, three seats to go. With Tennessee looking to stay Republican (though Ford has made it closer lately), we need to grab Montana, Virginia and Missouri. Virginia is still very close (about 23,000 votes separate Allen from Webb with 79% reporting) Talent leads McCaskill by about 3500 votes with 5% reporting. Montana hasn't closed yet.

UPDATE (8:20pm): HUGE!! Ben Cardin defeated Mike Steele. All the GOP was hoping beyond hope that this would be a chance for the GOP to steal a seat from the Dems and end their chances of gaining a majority in the Senate. I flipped over to Fox News to hear their take and you have never seen such a collection of sourpusses and curmudgeons. These guys and JC Watts on CNN were putting much hopes on grabbing this. Can't wait to hear from Watts as he claims that this is really no big surprise.

UPDATE WITHIN AN UPDATE: Watts looks surprisingly hurt that his friend Steele lost. Begala jumped right on the fact that Steele has done everything he could to paint himself as a Dem as far as advertising went. As Begala noted, if you have to bust your tail to make yourself look like a Dem, then that doesn't speak well for the GOP this year.

UPDATE (8:10pm): So CNN has called Connecticut for Lieberman. Just goes to show what you can do when you spit in the collective face of your Democratic constiuents. Greenfield at CNN ponders that Holy Joe might be inclined to gloat a bit. I think that he should take no pride in flip-flopping his position on any number of issues and crapping on Dem primary voters.

Exit polls indicate that the GOP is responsible for putting Joe in office, as he grabbed on 26% of Dem voters with 36% of GOP voters.

As many on the left blogosphere feel, Lamont really dropped the ball by not pounding away after winning the primary in August. It was almost as if he had gone into hiding instead of pressing the advantage and that most likely had a big effect on the results tonight.

Alright, slate's clean right now. Let's see what Joe does when he gets back to the Senate. I'll be interested in seeing if he chooses to continue being the mouthpiece for the GOP and Bush that he's always been (and I really see no reason why this leopard would change his spots). Time will tell.

UPDATE (7:55pm): Bill Kristol, working the Fox News scene tonight claimed that George Allen would be running away with his race if not for YouTube and the blogs. Yeah, it's the blogs that called someone a racial slur. And it's the YouTube that tackled someone who asked you a question you didn't like. Kristol, learn a lesson and stop blaming the messenger.

One other Kristol thought - he's using an intensely lame telestrator to illustrate the needed Dem pickups in the Senate. The whole thing was disjointed and just looked completely antiquated. Over at CNN, everything looks state-of-the-art with touchscreens and big monitors and all other kinds of eye-pleasing bells and whistles. It's like CNN is working is Pixar while Fox dabbles with fingerpaint.

UPDATE (7:30pm): MSNBC is projecting Bob Casey defeating Santorum. Again, not a big shocker, but it places us another seat closer to getting back the Senate. My only question is who will be the new GOP face for the anti man-dog sex movement?

Also, CBS News is calling the New Jersey Senate race for Democrat Bob Menendez over Tom Kean Jr. The GOP has been crowing about this for months as a potential pickup yet it apparently has not come to pass. This closely mirrors what Bush did in '04 as his party felt they had a shot at NJ (or at least, that was the party line), but utlimately it comes down to the fact that NJ is a Democratic state and looks to remain so (Jeff Greenfield of CNN said that a Repub has not been elected to the Senate in NJ since 1972).

UPDATE WITHIN AN UPDATE: JC Watts is working CNN tonite and he claims that the GOP never really thought they had a shot at capturing a NJ win in the Senate. I call BS on this one. I don't have numbers as far as how much the GOP spent in the final weeks, but I'm certain that it's no small amount (even taking into account the high cost of advertising in NJ).

UPDATE OF AN UPDATE WITHIN AN UPDATE: Alright, now JC Watts is just starting to bug me. Nothing apparently surprises this man. It's been noted that Jim Webb is getting a large percentage of the evangelical vote in Virginia and this does not seem to phase JC. I'm starting to wonder just what would surprise JC this evening. Paul Begala puts it in the proper perspective when he calls this a big deal. Not to Watts, apparently.

We're still on pace for a Senate majority.

On the governor's side, it sure looks like Charlie Crist is going to defeat Jim Davis in Florida. It's still early (27% reporting) but Crist has quite a large lead.

UPDATE (7:20pm): So Santorum is already sending a letter out claiming massive fraud throughout the state and that will be the reason if Santorum happens to lose. The Santorum folks are also totally spinning until the very end as they tout their candidate is such a strong closer that everyone will see the ultimate upset in Pennsylvania. His opponent's staff calls that "laughable." I agree. Santorum is toast.

UPDATE (7:10pm): Another non-shocker coming out of Ohio, Sherrod Brown defeated Mike Dewine in the Senate race there, which means we're one seat closer to a majority. Like I said, this isn't a huge shock by any means as the GOP had stopped funding this race about a week ago, but hey, a pick-up is a pick-up.

UPDATE (7:05pm): So now the Big Three Senate races are closed. I of course refer to Virginia, Missouri and Tennessee. Early numbers are in for Virginia as they've been closed for an hour now and right now it's still pretty close, though Webb holds a slight lead with 24% reporting. Assuming other factors, if Dems win two of these three, we could be looking at control of the Senate.

UPDATE (6:30pm): In what can only be described as the non-shocker of the night, Ted Strickland has been projected as the winner of the Ohio gubernatorial race against evil bastard and election fixer Ken Blackwell. Now who will the GOP use to fix elections in Ohio without Blackwell around?

(6:05pm) Based solely on very early returns from Indiana and Kentucky, as well as some exit polls, I think this is going to be a very big night for the Dems.
I'll keep updating this thread as the night goes on.

2006-11-07T18:45:00.000-06:00

WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT MEAN?!

TOM DELAY

According to Cliff Schecter, who's guest-blogging at Crooks and Liars, Tom DeLay is over on Fox News calling a Democratic majority in the House a "lame duck majority." So he's already come up with a name for something that hasn't even happened yet. Of course, I didn't see the exchange so perhaps I'm missing the context (c'mon, I've got enough of a pit in my stomach without watch Fox News spin all night; I'll grudgingly view CNN tonight).

So either DeLay knows something the rest of us don't or he's panicking; as well he should, but probably more because he'll be headed to prison sometime in his future.

Or maybe he's referring to his own GOP's prospects after tonight? Maybe I'll flip over to see if we can hear anymore DeLay-isms.

2006-11-07T18:10:00.000-06:00

GETTING UGLY ON THE RIGHT

REDSTATE.COM

I'll be checking on some of the rightie bloggers throughout the evening to get a balanced look at things. Redstate has already called their first race (tongue planted firmly in cheek, I should add) as they called Florida for Ben Nelson:

Breaking with a long tradition of waiting for actual results, indications, or hints of either - RedState can conclusively say that Katherine Harris has lost her bid for election to the United States Senate. Congratulations to Democrat Bill Nelson for "earning" another term serving the people of Florida. And by "earning" we mean something that looks a lot like a a middling professional boxer beating the snot out of a seven year old with a limp.
Congratulations, Mrs. Dole.

How about that dig at NRSC chairman Elizabeth Dole? I hope she's wearing some of that body armor that isn't getting to our troops because she's gonna be taking quite a few shot tonight and tomorrow.

2006-11-07T17:27:00.000-06:00

EARLY RESULTS?

(Compiled by Americablog)

Political Wire has some early returns in various Senate races. As Goddard notes, take this as you will:

Rhode Island - Dems lead by 7
Virginia - Dems lead by 7
Pennsylvania - Dems lead by 15
Ohio - Dems lead by 14
New Jersey - Dems lead by 8
Montana - Dems lead by 9
Missouri - Dems lead by 2

Tennessee - GOP leads by 3
Arizone - GOP leads by 4

Huffington Post has similar results, with only Virginia and Montana showing slight differences.

Rhode Island - Dems lead by 7
Virginia - Dems lead by 5
Pennsylvania - Dems lead by 15
Ohio - Dems lead by 14
New Jersey - Dems lead by 7
Montana - Dems lead by 7
Missouri - Dems lead by 2

Tennessee - GOP leads by 3
Arizone - GOP leads by 4

So far, that's a pretty good situation, but it's still very early and there's a lot of votes for the Repubs to steal so stay tuned.

Another thing I'm keeping an eye on is Tradesports.
The head of my political science department turned me onto it and Glenn Greenwald has been all over it today. Glenn describes Tradesports best:
A very active and (seemingly) informed market for political junkies to trade in predictive shares for each individual Congressional race and overall control of Congress. In the same way The New York Stock Exchange functions, the trading transactions at various prices between willing buyer and seller produce (at least in theory) an accurate probability for the outcome of each race.

Below are the percentages assigned for each listed outcome. The Democrats need a net gain of six seats to gain control of the Senate, and if this trading market is right, they would pick up exactly six seats (the Democratic "turn" seats are bolded below). On the race-by-race list, the market is betting that no Democratic incumbent loses (none is even close to endangered):

I'll use Glenn's updated list as the site has been choppy today given higher traffic:

Arizona - turning Democratic - 7.9%
Connecticut - remaining Democratic (Lamont) - 4.0%
Connecticut - remaining "Democratic" (Lieberman)- 94.7%
Maryland - remaining Democratic - 65.3%
Michigan - remaining Democratic - 94.9%
Minnesota - remaining Democratic - 92.9%
Missouri - turning Democratic - 60.0%
Montana - turning Democratic - 69.0%
New Jersey - remaining Democratic - 94.2%
Ohio - turning Democratic - 96.2%
Pennsylvania - turning Democratic - 94.2%
Rhode Island - turning Democratic - 68.0%
Tennessee - turning Democratic - 22.0%
Virginia - turning Democratic - 66.0%
Washington - remaining Democratic - 92.2%

I highlight the ones based on Political Wire's and Huffpost's returns and they seem to jibe with the early numbers.

2006-11-07T16:12:00.000-06:00

EARLY EXIT POLLING

Watching some early exit polls (no candidate results, just voter views) on CNN ...
Surprising to see that this is indeed a national election and in this election, politics is definitely not necessarily local this time around (about 2/3 said national issues are more important than local issues). Another one that was something of a shocker is that many voters said that corruption (42%) in Washington is very important, leading terrorism (40%), the economy (39%) and then Iraq (37%). (This was not a pie-chart type of question as the numbers would obviously add up to more than 100%; it was about which issues are most important.)

Early on, Democrats had hoped to push a "culture of corruption" storyline for this election and on some levels they demonstrated some success, though I think if you asked many bloggers, it was a nice sideshow, but probably not the main event/juicy issue that could win the election for them. This polling seems to indicate that the corruption issue did resonate with the voters and that can only be a good thing for the Democrats.

2006-11-07T15:40:00.000-06:00

GOP ANGELS

KEN MEHLMAN

Ken Mehlman was just on CNN and he gave the standard garbage answers to Wolf Blitzer. What stuck in my craw was when Wolf asked him about reports of GOP dirty tricks (as I've been keeping track of below) to which Mehlman recited a litany of disproven or demonstrably false claims of Democratic chicanery he claims occurred during the '04 election.

Of course, it is not like I would expect the Mehlman, as head of the Grand Lying Party, to own up to anything, so I probably would have fallen out of my chair in shock if he would have made any sort of mention of GOP chicanery. Still, for him to simply bloviate on and on about how voter fraud and suppression and intimidation is purely a Democratic tactic while the GOP is all about everyone who is eligible to vote getting to vote is quite simply sickening. Is there a special place in hell for this type of subhuman?

2006-11-07T15:20:00.000-06:00

ELECTION DAY THOUGHTS

UPDATE (3:15pm): And so it continues, this time in Maryland. From Washington Post courtesy of Americablog:

Inaccurate sample ballots describing Republican Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. and Senate candidate Michael S. Steele as Democrats were handed out to voters in at least four polling sites in Prince George's County this morning.

The ballots were handed out by people who said they arrived by buses this morning from Pennsylvania and Delaware.

Erik Markle, one of the people handing out literature for Ehrlich, who is seeking reelection, and Steele, the current lieutenant governor who is campaigning to replace retiring Sen. Paul Sarbanes (D), said he was recruited at a homeless shelter in Philadelphia.

After a two-hour bus ride to Maryland, Markle said the workers were greeted early this morning by first lady Kendel Ehrlich, who thanked them as they were outfitted in T-shirts and hats with the logo for Ehrlich's reelection campaign. Nearly all of those recruited, Markle said, are poor and black. Workers traveled to Maryland in at least seven large buses.

...

The Ehrlich and Steele campaigns yesterday acknowledged sending out an election-eve flier, sporting pictures of Johnson, his predecessor Wayne K. Curry and former NAACP president Kweisi Mfume. The mailer, declaring itself an "official voter guide" and criticized by Democrats, suggested the three Democrats backed Ehrlich and Steele. Curry has endorsed Steele; none has endorsed Ehrlich.

If you can't beat the Dems on your merits, then try to win with underhanded tactics meant to confuse voters. The Republicans - the anti-democracy party.

UPDATE (2:45pm): Christy Hardin Smith at FDL has some thoughts on Ingraham:

UPDATE: Laura Ingraham has asked her listeners to call the Dem Voter protection hotline — and they are now being flooded with calls from crank callers. Please call Laura and tell her what you think about this: 800.876.4123. You can e-mail her here. Apparently, voter intimidation and fraud are a joke to Laura Ingraham. Let's let her know that it is no joke.

UPDATE #2: More on Laura Ingraham: "caller indicated she is running a tape of Bill Clinton over and over saying "call 1-888 Dem Vote to report problems" — and then making fun of him, thus producing a spike in crank calls to the number" Protecting voter integrity is no joke. And I am not laughing. If anyone has audio of this, I'd love it.

UPDATE (2:20pm): Laura Ingraham hates democracy. That's the only conclusion I can draw as she instructed her audience to jam phone lines to a national number for reporting irregularities in voting. Via Think Progress/, Ingraham feels that it'd be a hoot to call up 888-DEM-VOTE in order to keep legitimate voting complaints from actually getting through.

The GOP in action - suppress the vote in order to subvert the will of the voters.

UPDATE (1:15pm): Computer-related issues this update as voters in Missouri seem to be having problems actually casting votes for their candidate of choice. From TPM Election Central:

TPM reader PW writes: My wife just came home from voting here in Webster Groves MO. She used the electronic touch-screen voting system. . . She touched Claire McCaskill's picture and the machine recorded a vote for Jim Talent. She then called one of the people running the polling center who helped her correct the problem. My wife then had to call the person over another time after it recorded her vote a Republican again. In her frustration she asked the person who was responsible for the design of this system. The polling person leaned in very close to my wife and whispered, "We're f----d."

So, we're looking at computer "glitches" (and to actually call them glitches is to be highly generous on my part) among other problems listed below. I'll keep them coming.

UPDATE (12:15pm): So the robocalls continue, but this time with a twist. From Americablog:

Just because it's Scott Kleeb's prerecorded voice on the other line, doesn't mean his campaign is behind the phone call, according to his communications director.

Prerecorded telephone messages supposedly from Kleeb, a Third Congressional District candidate, have been repeatedly calling people in Central Nebraska, and
Ben Lumpkin, Kleeb's communications director, is concerned about the effects.

The messages, known as robocalls, are designed to inform voters about certain candidates. However, Lumpkin said he has received numerous complaints about the prerecorded messages calling repeatedly -- as many as six times an hour....

"We've had a couple of people who said they were tired of the harassing phone calls and wanted us to stop calling," she said. Some of them said they weren't going to vote for Kleeb, or at all, as a result, she said. "It's creating a bad environment for our volunteers," she said. "The point is to depress voter turnout."

Quirk said Kleeb's campaign isn't behind the repeated calls and she worries about the robocalls' impact. "They'll probably find out who's doing this, but it won't be today or tomorrow, and by then it will be too late," she said Monday.

If you want a party that advocating lying, cheating and stealing elections, by all means vote Republican. Me, I think it's time for a change. America is better than this and it's time to prove it.

UPDATE (11am): This one is great, thought not necessarily a voter suppression story. It comes from a voter in Connecticut who says he received a robocall. From TPM Muckraker:

The poll identified itself pretty quickly as being from a republican group, and then it went on to promise that if you vote republicans then they would stop the robocalls.

Well, that would make sense since the GOP is one group that's harrassing voters in the first place. Of course, Rethugs have no intention of stopping their misleading and possibly illegal robocalls, but it was nice of them to offer.

...

Ugh, of all the times for my internet to go down, last night's outage was definitely not a good thing. It rained for hours around here and basically left me without a connection for the rest of the night, so I feel like I'm totally behind what's been going on.

Anyway, it seems like the story of the day is going to be GOP efforts at voter suppression. I thought that I'd start making a list for my own edification and I'd add to it as the day progressed. So far, we've got:

GOP robocalls, where the call attempts to sound like it's from the local Dem candidate. If the person hangs up, the robocall with call back many times to the point where the victim of the attack feels that they are being harrassed by the Dem candidate and refuses to vote for him/her.
So states have required that the GOP stop such deceptive practices, but the criminals seem undaunted. I'd post a link to verify all this, but seriously, just type "robocall" into Google and you'll be inundated with material.

Next, I saw all manner of voter suppression tactics in Virginia (courtesy Daily Kos and American Chronicle). My absolute favorite has got to be the story of Timothy Daly. This is a voicemail he received, allegedly from the Virginia Elections Commission:

“This message is for Timothy Daly. This is the Virginia Elections Commission. We've determined you are registered in New York to vote. Therefore, you will not be allowed to cast your vote on Tuesday. If you do show up, you will be charged
criminally."

Daly has been registered to vote in Virginia since 1998, and he has voted for the last several cycles with no problem. He has filed a criminal complaint with the Commonwealth’s attorney in Arlington.

We also have the always popular "change of voting place" notice:

Widespread Calls, Allegedly from “Webb Volunteers,” Telling Voters that their Polling Location has Changed.
A couple of examples:
a. Norman Cox has been registered to vote in the same location in Arlington since 1972. Someone from a 406 number (in Montana) called to tell him that his polling place has changed. [Note: The Webb Campaign is NOT making any such phone calls.] Cox said he believed that he was being mislead and the caller hung up.
b. Peter Baumann in Cape Charles, VA (North Hampton) got a similar call from a “Webb volunteer” saying his polling location had changed. He said: No, I’m a poll worker and I know where I vote. The girl—who was calling from California—hung
up.
The Secretary of the State Board of Elections Jean Jensen has logged dozens of similar calls, finding heavy trends in Accomack County (middle peninsula) and Essex County (outer peninsula) [as reported by the counties’ registrars].

Then we have the old standby - "skip the election":

Fliers in Buckingham County Say “SKIP THIS ELECTION” (paid for by the RNC) have caused many in the African American community to call the Board of Elections to see if the election is still on. The full tag line says: “SKIP THIS ELECTION… (and then in smaller print): Don’t Let the Tax and Spend Liberals Win.”
“Intimidation of voters has no place in this or any election. The blatant attempts by Republicans to suppress the African American vote by saying: ‘SKIP THIS ELECTION’ is contrary to the democratic principles that govern our Commonwealth and we hope the world,” said Jack Young, the co-chair of Virginia Promote the Vote and a national voting rights expert.

And, of course, no election chicanery can be complete without voting machine problems:

a. On many ballots in heavily Democratic neighborhoods, Jim’s name is cut off. The ballots say: “James H. (Jim)” with no Webb.
b. New reports that ballots in Essex County have Jim’s name split on 2 pages. The “James H (Jim)” on one page, “Webb” on the next.
c. Reports of voting machines in Isle of White that do not provide a clear image of the ballot, making voting a challenge.

It's offensive to me as a human being that the Republican Party is incapable of running on the merits of their work (or lack thereof) and would rather do everything, legal or otherwise, to suppress voter turnout. I'll update this throughout the day as I hear of more chicanery. Til then, go out and vote. If you experience problems call one or all of these numbers:

1-866-OUR VOTE (1-866-687-8683) (website here)
1-888-DEM VOTE (1-888-336-8683) (DNC hotline)
1-888-SAV-VOTE (1-888-728-8683) (voting machine problems)

Good luck.

2006-11-07T13:23:00.000-06:00

TALKING OUT OF HER ASS

BAY BUCHANAN

Bay Buchanan is on CNN right now and she is once again playing up the idea that Nancy Pelosi as House Speaker equals the fall of the republic. She sites a supposed instance where a Democrat actually came up to her as she campaigned for some candidate in Missouri where the Dem claimed that Nancy Pelosi is the main issue for him and he cannot vote for the Democrats because it would make Pelosi speaker.
On some many levels this is beyond preposterous. It's only Republicans who are touting the specter of the Pelosi-monster as a reason to vote for the incumbent party. No Dem is worried about this. And for Buchanan to present some made up story as proof that even Dems fear the "San Francisco liberal" is asinine.

How far the mighty GOP has fallen when they cannot run on their records, but must instead invent a boogeyman to scare voters into keeping their incompetent and power-drunk asses in office.

2006-11-07T10:08:00.000-06:00

FUNNY, SORTA

JEAN SCHMIDT

Ouch, my irony bone is killing me. I know this may come as a shock to some, but there are already early problems with voting machines in Ohio. I know; shocker! What tickles me in the dark recesses of my mind is that one of the victims of voting machine problems is none other than the infamous resume padder herself, Mean Jean Schmidt of Ohio's second Congressional District. In her district they use optical scanning equipment, but apparently a machine in her polling place isn't functioning properly.

Maybe she can call her buddy Ken Blackwell and see if he can fix her up. After all, it's his job to make certain these sort of things don't happen, or rather, it's his job to make certain that these things don't happen to Republican voters. Dem voters, absolutely! But when it comes to GOP votes, Blackwell always says, "Let every vote (for the GOP) count!"

2006-11-06T16:08:00.000-06:00

BRAVE NEW WORLD

KARL ROVE

Following up on my previous post about GOP gubernatorial candidate Charlie Crist who chose to stand up Mr. Bush during his visit to Pensacola today. Never mind that Bush made the trip specifically to campaign with Crist. Pay no mind that Bush made the trip at Crist's own request. See, Crist would rather spend his time courting moderate and independent voters, and at this point in his presidency, Bush is only even partially useful for rilingt up the base. Moderates and independents are no fans of Bush and Crist knows this. And since it is these same moderate and independent voters who will decide if Crist moves to Tallahassee.
One person who is more than a little miffed at being stiffed is none other than the mad genius himself Karl Rove. From CNN:

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove expressed frustration Monday over Florida GOP gubernatorial candidate Charlie Crist's decision not to appear with President Bush at a rally in Pensacola.

"Let's see how many people show up in Palm Beach on 24 hrs notice versus 8 or 9,000 people in Pensacola," Rove told CNN referring to a Crist rally quickly organized by the campaign after the GOP gubernatorial candidate canceled his appearance with the President.

Roves comments came even as even as other Senior White House administration officials tried to downplay the cancellation, noting Crist is campaigning in more moderate regions of the state as he tries to pick up independent voters on the final day of his campaign.

Awww, poor widdle Wove got his feewings awl stepped on. Poor widdle baby. Unfortunately for him, Rove is one of the few people still left on the planet who thinks his boss is money. Everyone else sees Bush for the albatross he is, yet Rove still lives in a world where the 30% base will go out and vote and all they need to do is scare enough independents and moderates to get to 51%. Unfortunately for him, this is a new world we live in where people aren't going to reflexively turn to the GOP just because Rove says 'boo'. Come tomorrow, a brave new world will dawn on America; it's a reality that will be completely foreign and wholly unwelcoming to Rove. Poor widdle Wove.

2006-11-06T08:02:00.000-06:00

DISSED!

GEORGE W. BUSH

I would just have to wonder if George isn't sniffing his armpits to check if he stinks or something. After all, he planned a special trip to Florida just to help the Republican gubernatorial candidate, Charlie Crist. Now, Crist wants nothing to do with him.

In a race that is much closer than many people would have figured it would be, and that includes me as I get some political ad spillover from Pensacola where I live. I believe that I may have seen one ad for Jim Davis, the Dem candidate in the last few weeks, but it's a daily occurence to see a Crist ad. (Of course, this may be a function of prudent ad buying as the northwest area of Florida is known for its conservative leanings and perhaps Davis feels that his money could be better spent in other parts of the state.) Anyway, some polls now have Davis within a few percentage points of Crist and that has to be making the state GOP nervous. So now might be a good time to bring in the Big Dog, right? Um, no. Not if that big dog is a president who is mired in the 30s in his approval ratings and has a an intensely unpopular war (of his own making) hanging around his neck. If that's the big dog, then you blow that big dog off, and that's exactly what Crist did on Sunday.
Pertinent details courtesy of Americablog:

Republican gubernatorial candidate Charlie Crist decided Sunday to skip an appearance with President Bush in favor of crisscrossing the state in the final hours before Election Day.

The White House, however, said this week that the president was heading to Florida specifically to help Mr. Crist, who, according to Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman, invited Mr. Bush in the first place.

Awww, where's the love for George? It ain't coming from Crist, that's for sure.

2006-11-05T11:26:00.000-06:00

ABOVE THE LAW

DICK CHENEY

Much of DICK Cheney's time in office has been spent consolidating and growing the power of the executive branch. His former boss Richard Nixon once famously claimed that when a president does something that means that it's not illegal. Both men share a firmly held belief that those holding the ultimate executive positions are categorically above the law. These people need not play by the rules that govern the common men for, much like the divinely chosen kings that preceded them, presidents are the law. Or, more appropriately, as King Louis XIV so pompously claimed, "L'Etat, c'est moi" - I am the state.
With this in mind, I bring you Cheney's next in a seemingly endless stream of offenses against this beaten down nation. One of the carrots at the end of the electoral stick for Democrats to retake control of Congress is the power of the subpoena. With it, the United States can finally begin to heal from the egregious wounds inflicted upon it by a runaway presidency and its rubberstamp backers currently residing in both houses of Congress. But to DICK Cheney, subpoena power means nothing. From his appearance on This Week (transcript via Think Progress):

STEPHANOPOULOS: You’ve talked a lot about the consequences of the Democrats taking over congress in the last week. Nancy Pelosi said this: “we win, speaking of the democrat, we get subpoena power.” If you’re subpoenaed by the Democrats, would you go?

CHENEY: I have no idea that i’m going to be subpoenaed. Obviously, we’d sit down and look at it at the time. But probably not in the sense at that Vice President and President and constitutional officers don’t appear before the Congress.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That’s your view of executive power? You’re not going to go up and testify.

CHENEY: I think that’s been the tradition. I can’t remember the last time a President did appear before the Congress. Or a Vice President.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Gerald Ford, I think.

CHENEY: That’s right. But not on a subpoena, he did it on his own.

Once again, little things like the law don't apply to Cheney and Bush. The constitutionally directed mandate of the United States Congress to provide oversight of the executive branch is not applicable to this administration. This group of criminals is responsible to no one, at least according to their definition of executive authority. When the new congress is sworn in early next year, I look forward to seeing this worldview put to the test.

QUICK FOLLOW-UP (courtesy of Crooks and Liars):

Top Republicans Sunday warned President Bill Clinton that refusing to honor independent counsel Ken Starr's grand jury subpoena in the Monica Lewinsky case could have serious political consequences — including the possibility of impeachment.
"I think it would be disastrous. It is basically saying he is above the law, he doesn't have to comply with the law," said Senate Majority Whip Don Nickles of Oklahoma on NBC's "Meet The Press." "Everybody else in America has to comply with subpoenas (while) he's saying he wouldn't. … I don't think that would be sustainable."
"(Clinton) has an obligation as the highest official in this government, sworn to uphold the Constitution and the laws of this country. If he doesn't do that, I think public opinion would turn overwhelmingly against him," said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch of Utah on CBS's "Face The Nation."

Nothing like a little intellectual consistency mixed in with some good old rank hypocrisy, hmm? Oh, how times have changed!

2006-11-05T08:12:00.000-06:00

NEVER LET THE TRUTH...

ELIZABETH DOLE

Elizabeth Dole appeared on Meet the Press this morning and after watching it, I can come to only two conclusions - she's dumb or she's lying. I'm inclined to believe that it is both, but the reason for my beliefs is that fact that she dusted off an old canard in regards to justifying the invasion and occupation of Iraq; namely, nuclear weapons.
When remarking on the recently handed down and purely politcally motivated and time verdict on Saddam, she stated that he was "a madman who had in his focus the preparation of nuclear weapons."
Of course, this is patently false as the definitive report on the matter concluded

Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program. … Although Saddam clearly assigned a high value to the nuclear progress and talent that had been developed up to the 1991 war, the program ended and the intellectual capital decayed in the succeeding years.

Which brings me back to my original question - is she dumb or is she lying. In this case, I'm going to go with dumb. The argument over justification for the war is a useless endeavor. Bush and his ilk know exactly why we went to war with Iraq, and it had nothing to do with avenging 9/11 or spreading democracy in the middle east or saving Iraqis from the iron fist rule of Saddam or weapons of mass destruction or any of the countless other reasons the thrust upon the American public. Going back the nuclear card would be useless exercise in the context of Dole's reply. Which basically puts her directly and correctly in the "dumb" category. And really, is the idea that Elizabeth Dole being a blockhead that much of a stretch?

2006-11-04T19:24:00.000-06:00

AN ACT OF GOD

KATHERINE HARRIS

At this point in time, I thought that I would not write another Katherine Harris post. After all, she will not win her election for one of Florida's Senate seats. The race has never been close. At this point her opponent, Democratic incumbent leads Harris by about 23 points. The closest I could find her to Nelson was about 17 points, while the largest gap had her behind by 43 points. It would take more pull than she mustered to throw the presidential election in 2000 for her to pull this one out. And since her losing is such a forgone conclusion, there is only so many times that I can write interesting stories about the latest Harris campaign meltdown (and believe me, there were plenty).
Fortunately for Harris, as this will more than likely be my last post about her for the forseeable future, she's picqued my interest on more time. It seems that Harris has a problem with Jews, or rather, those who are non-Christians. A couple of months ago she commented about how we should only elect good Christians to government, apparently forgetting that many of her constiuents in Florida are decidedly non-Christian. Well, it seems she's hitting that button again, as she laments why her Jewish friends just can't become Christians like the better people in the world are. From TBO.com via John at Americablog:

U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris, who has made past comments that raised questions about her religious sensitivity, prayed in a telephone prayer service recently that God would "bring the hearts and minds of our Jewish brothers and sisters into alignment."

...

Jeffrey Pasek, president of the Jewish Social Policy Action Network, said he couldn't tell what Harris meant, but said he is troubled by her comments.

"Harris appears to be asserting the country should be governed by religious law" and advocating "an alignment between American law and what she interprets as biblical law," he said.

I don't know Katherine Harris. Never met her, not really interested in doing so. But I guess she's never struck me as the zealot that she's been portraying herself as during this campaign. Is it an act, or has she always been this overtly pious? It's a question that I might be mildly interested in pondering if I actually gave two poops about her. What I do know is that in five days, Harris will be gone from the Congress and that branch of government will be a better place for losing her.
One other thought - has Harris turned ultra-religious because she knows that it will take an actual act of God to get her elected to the Senate? Aside from Christ himself coming down and commanding his followers to vote for her (and I would contend that most would still not do so), Harris will be packing her bags come November 5.