Good time for a rollout

I was wondering if the Democrats were going to hit McCain on his well known temper.

Looks like they have.

This is the line that needs to get burned into the minds of voters:

“He has a huge anger problem,” Boxer said. “And he never hid that. ... I have seen it happen on the Senate floor many, many times. … He has exploded at me a couple times.”

Boxer said McCain has always apologized after the dust-ups. Nonetheless, she insinuated that McCain’s temperament makes him unfit for the White House.

“It’s all well and good to apologize,” Boxer added, “but if you are in charge of that black box, I worry about that.”

Jon Stewart Lays in to Traditional Media

Very inneresting.

Kind of hope there is a recording of this.

That's more like it

Awesome.

This is about right

I think this quote perfectly captures the essence of the modern Republican party:

And that's the sort of thing that makes the conservative movement hard to take seriously -- it's an organized defense of existing power and privilege that now and again adopts principled rhetorical modes of various kinds but basically can't be moved to act unless some lobbyists pay them too.

Another America Hater

Fortunately, we have Rush Limbaugh to tell us all we need to know about this guy.

Perspective from Edwards

This was brilliant-

Touche

Of all the mysteries in the world, the one that I have never been able to fully wrap my head around is, "Why would anyone ever listen to Bill Kristol?" The man has been wrong about everything, especially on Iraq.

His latest example of outright hackery was published in the Washington Post, made the argument that history will judge Bush kindly. As you may well imagine, the piece was just ridiculous and had no right to be featured in any newspaper, much less the Post. Fortunately, David Corn has provided a much needed reality check for Kristol. Please read.

If only

If only the news of the day looked like this:



What pisses me off is that Olbermann is considered a liberal. He is really just an honest journalist.

Looky Here- It's Journalism!!! -- well, kind of

As you may have noticed in President Bush's press conference yesterday, he mentioned that the big problem in Iraq is Al-Qaeda:

In rebuffing calls to bring troops home from Iraq, President Bush on Thursday employed a stark and ominous defense. “The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq,” he said, “were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th, and that’s why what happens in Iraq matters to the security here at home.”

It is an argument Mr. Bush has been making with frequency in the past few months, as the challenges to the continuation of the war have grown. On Thursday alone, he referred at least 30 times to Al Qaeda or its presence in Iraq.

As anyone with an IQ above that of the common house plant can see, Bush is plainly using this as a ploy to connect Iraq with Al-Qaeda- again. The New York Times, to its credit, tries to debunk this claim:

But his references to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, and his assertions that it is the same group that attacked the United States in 2001, have greatly oversimplified the nature of the insurgency in Iraq and its relationship with the Qaeda leadership.

There is no question that the group is one of the most dangerous in Iraq. But Mr. Bush’s critics argue that he has overstated the Qaeda connection in an attempt to exploit the same kinds of post-Sept. 11 emotions that helped him win support for the invasion in the first place.

Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia did not exist before the Sept. 11 attacks. The Sunni group thrived as a magnet for recruiting and a force for violence largely because of the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, which brought an American occupying force of more than 100,000 troops to the heart of the Middle East, and led to a Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad.

For the most part, this is great. I bolded, however, something which really bothers me and it has been going on for far too long. These disputes are always presented as two sides of an unresolved argument (in fact, the title of the article is: Bush Distorts Qaeda Links, Critics Assert). As in, Bush has his reality, his critics have theirs. Yet, Bush's reality is extremely easy to debunk. In the very next paragraph, the authors lay out quite clearly, that Al-Qaeda didn't exist in Iraq before 9-11!

Instead of reporting it as a he said/she said, kind of dispute, call it like it is. The President is making another attempt to play fast and loose with the facts about Iraq. If the White House challenges the claim, the New York Times has a mountain of evidence to back it up. It isn't that hard to understand. After all that we have seen from Bush and his cult, it shouldn't surprise anyone that they will actively try to manipulate the American people in order to further their goals.

RFK at Live Earth

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is fast becoming one of my heros. His insightful opinions are well-reasoned and well-informed. His frequent contributions to Rolling Stone have examined the theft of elections, and he offers a powerful contribution to the excellent Air America show Ring of Fire. They pack heaps of information into just a few hours [you can subscribe to the free podcast here]. To wet your beaks a bit, here's a video of a recent speech he gave at Live Earth.

The actual fact check

In regards to my earlier post about Moore's appearance on CNN. Here is his response to the CNN 'fact check' on his movie.

Fact Checking

I just watched some of Michael Moore's smack down of Wolf Blitzer, and it is good. I would like to see the whole segment, which I imagine will be up later on other websites.

In a nutshell, Moore asked Wolf if CNN is going to apologize to him for attacking Fahrenheit 9-11 when it turned out he was ultimately correct. As I pionted out previously, Moore has a much better record than the vast majority of other pundits/commentators. Yet, as this commenter from Atrios notes:

I would love to see any statement from this administration get one tenth of the fine-toothed combing that every single scene of Moore's movies get.

I would also extend this to CNN, MSNBC and certainly Fox News. The media's standards for Moore's movies border on the ridiculous. For instance, in one of the many articles that sought to fact check Moore, they point to the fact that he did not mention the following:

Believe it or not, the United States does rank highest in the patient satisfaction category. Americans do have shorter wait times than everyone but Germans when it comes to nonemergency elective surgery such as hip replacements, cataract removal or knee repair.

In regards to the last part, I think this only strengthens Moore's point about the feebleness of the U.S. health care system. If you need a boob job or liposuction, you will be hurried right along. If you need emergency surgery, well you are kind of screwed.

On the first part of the quote, this certainly helps Moore's argument about the weakness of the American system. As is revealed in an earlier segment of the article:

Like Moore, we also found that more money does not equal better care. Both the French and Canadian systems rank in the Top 10 of the world's best health-care systems, according to the World Health Organization. The United States comes in at No. 37. The rankings are based on general health of the population, access, patient satisfaction and how the care's paid for.

According to this little nugget, we can assume that the measure of patient satisfaction is most definitely skewing the overall results. I would be curious to know what our ranking would be if patient satisfaction was left out. CNN could have found that out, but I am sure they try their best to stay away from anything resembling journalism.

In CNN's defense, I should point out that Michael Moore is fat.

David Corn has a Ricki Lake moment

The sensible conservative (David Brooks) gets it handed to him by David Corn. If this were Springer or Ricki Lake, David Brooks would be all pouty while Corn would be exhibiting the three snaps.

Playing Catchup

The NY Times has an article this morning which makes the case that President Bush has zero political capital left. Republicans have abandoned him on a number of issues (e.g. Iraq, immigration) and the American people are done with him:

For a president who once boasted that he had political capital and intended to use it, the back-to-back desertions demonstrated starkly just how little of that capital is left. With the nation turning its attention to who will succeed Mr. Bush — and Republican presidential candidates increasingly distancing themselves from him — even allies say it could become increasingly difficult for the president to assert himself over his party, much less force the Democratic majority in Congress to bend to his will.

Yet, as Arianna Huffington noted months ago (October, 2005), Bush had already lost his 'mojo':

The swaggering victor who just nine months ago was ready to spin his three-percent win into a mandate now can't even get his pal Harriet's nomination out of the starting gate. And odds are very high the Miers fiasco won't be close to the worst news the White House gets this week.

Post Katrina, I think a lot of the American public realized that this guy was not up to the job. President Bush got the benefit of the doubt after 9-11, but when we all saw the failures in New Orleans, it became painfully obvious that this President was completely inept.

However, as the Times article makes clear, the press if finally catching up with the rest of us. The interesting question here is, why? I think one of the biggest reasons is that an outlet like Fox News has warped elite opinion in this country. With its unstated mission of always supporting the President, it has shifted the debate artificially. Consequently, certain positions are left as unresolved (support for Bush policies) in the press discourse, while they have been fully determined by the public.

This wouldn't be as large as a problem if Fox News did not have the ratings they did. While in overall terms their ratings are quite minuscule; in the world of cable news, their ratings are huge. Networks like CNN and MSNBC, recognize this and do their best to peel off some of Fox's viewers. The only way they can accomplish this though, is to embrace the same inflated conservative discourse that Fox does. The end result is a press that is completely out of touch with the American people as the 'elite' opinion makers skew artifically to the right.

How to Treat a Bully

One of the things that has always puzzled me is the way that liberals react to "people" like Ann Coulter. There is far too much whining involved rather than directly challenging her crap spewing ways. Fortunately, Elizabeth Edwards decided to stand up to her and in the end, Coulter is left mumbling. Good for her.

American High Schoolers Hate America

Some high school students recently gave President Bush a letter asking him to stop the torture of prisoners. You really have to admire them, they were there to be honored by the president and instead dropped this on him:

President Bush was presented with a letter Monday signed by 50 high school seniors in the Presidential Scholars program urging a halt to "violations of the human rights" of terror suspects held by the United States.

The White House said Bush had not expected the letter but took a moment to read it and talk with a young woman who handed it to him.

...

The handwritten letter said the students "believe we have a responsibility to voice our convictions."

On the not-so-bright side, I am upset that these students were acting all partisan, from what I understand someone had to get Joe Lieberman his fainting couch, as he had a spell after hearing about this.

Michael Moore hates puppies and such

I have never understood the continued animosity towards Michael Moore. In a sane world, the US media would have apologized to Moore for getting on his case when he was proven right in the end. He would be the first on the speed dial for any number of TV talk shows and celebrated for what he is. A filmmaker who makes compelling films.

However, with this new movie coming out, I think we are in store for an endless amount of hand-wringing about him as the mainstream media will continue to classify him as controversial. Conservatives will scream about how crazy he his and liberals will hem and haw about the absolute veracity of every claim he makes.

Yet in the end, he is just a guy who honestly believes in this country and is doing his best to change it. I do believe that in each of his movies he makes an overarching point that is impossible to ignore and we as film goers are better off for his movies. He is right to suggest that we should not have invaded Iraq, we are a much more violent country than we should be and it is immoral for large corporations to destroy communities that worked so hard to create their wealth. I don't see anything controversial about these claims, yet they will continued to be discussed as such.

...also, when it comes to the war in Iraq, who has a better record? Michael Moore or the Bush Administration? Jus' sayin'.

The American People Hate America

It looks as if the American people are highly partisan. And by partisan, I mean that they overwhelmingly support progressive policy positions. What will we tell Joe Lieberman?

Perspective

In regards to the Democrat change on the Iraq supplemental bill, I am disappointed that we couldn't attach any timelines/benchmarks, but I think at some point we have to acknowledge the political reality. The Democrats simply don't have the votes to override a presidential veto and instead of pissing into the wind they correctly acknowledged that the situation was difficult. Unfortunately this hasn't stopped the purity trolls from exclaiming that the Democratic party is dead.

I really like kos's stance on this, so I am posting it in its entirety:

...there's nothing worse than the people who want to quit the game and take their ball home every time we face a setback. It's as if every word I've ever written about this being a long-term battle means zero. As if it's instant gratification or nothing.

We face a multiple-front war -- against conservatives, against an out-of-touch and corrupt beltway consultant class, against corporatist Democrats, or Democrats that long ago lost the fire in their belly, and against a compromised punditry elite. Those are tough opponents, and it'll be a decades-long fight.

Did any of you really think we won that war in 2006? I sure as heck didn't. 2006 was incremental improvement, just as 2008 will be. And hopefully 2010. Along the way, we'll likely lose some ground, but we must always remain focused on the long term.

The conservative movement spent three decades building up their machine and completing the takeover of their party. And some of you want to quit after one setback?

That's embarrassing.

Buck up. We still haven't completely lost this Iraq supplemental battle. And if we do, instead of crying and taking your ball home, resolve to fight even harder. We owe it to our troops in Iraq, to our families, to our neighbors, to ourselves.

We have a lot of deadwood to get rid of in DC -- both Democratic and Republican. We have to combat the lies of the right wing noise machine and its allies in the traditional media. We have to build an electoral machine that can go toe-to-toe against the GOP's machine and win -- even when Republicans aren't shooting themselves in the foot.

This movement is about fighting for what we believe in, doing the hard work to transform both our party and our nation. It won't happen at once. We'll have to do this incrementally one issue fight and one election cycle at a time.

If we want to build a movement here, this is the approach we need to take. Those folks that want to stammer and stutter every time we don't get our way are acting just like the President.

Was that so hard?

The mainstream press has done a lot to mythologize the president for his 'performance' on 9/11. However, I think this passage from a recent book by Lee Iococca gets it right and I hope this becomes the new way to think about his performance:

On September 11, 2001, we needed a strong leader more than any other time in our history. We needed a steady hand to guide us out of the ashes. Where was George Bush? He was reading a story about a pet goat to kids in Florida when he heard about the attacks. He kept sitting there for twenty minutes with a baffled look on his face. It's all on tape. You can see it for yourself. Then, instead of taking the quickest route back to Washington and immediately going on the air to reassure the panicked people of this country, he decided it wasn't safe to return to the White House. He basically went into hiding for the day—and he told Vice President Dick Cheney to stay put in his bunker. We were all frozen in front of our TVs, scared out of our wits, waiting for our leaders to tell us that we were going to be okay, and there was nobody home. It took Bush a couple of days to get his bearings and devise the right photo op at Ground Zero.

That was George Bush's moment of truth, and he was paralyzed. And what did he do when he'd regained his composure? He led us down the road to Iraq—a road his own father had considered disastrous when he was President. But Bush didn't listen to Daddy. He listened to a higher father. He prides himself on being faith based, not reality based. If that doesn't scare the crap out of you, I don't know what will.