I don't get it

Whenever I go to Daily Kos, I can't help but notice the posted diaries on impeachment. It seems like everyday there are 8 to 10 diaries suggesting we impeach the President and Vice President as soon as possible. Upon reading these diaries, and others blog posts in support of impeachment, I have had a consistently mixed reaction. I believe Digby explains it best:

Has there ever been a president who deserved it more? I don't think so. Looking at this as someone who believes that until we hold them accountable for their crimes, these zombie crooks will keep doing this over and over again until our country is unrecognizable, my instinct is to scream it from the rafters. But I'm still not convinced that the Democrats should try to impeach.

She points out three reasons why impeachment is a long shot:

1. There isn't an identifiable 'crime' to impeach him on- some might say the actions that led to war would constitute grounds for impeachment, but we need a specific, easily provable instance of wrongdoing here. I don't see one. The acts related to the attorney scandal may constitute grounds, but that leads us to 2.

2. Time is not on our side- the legal battles related to the attorney scandal would take an extremely long time to settle. By that time Bush would already be out of office.

3. This is the most compelling reason against impeachment- so I will quote in full:

Finally, there is the most important and indisputable fact that Bush and Cheney will never be convicted in the Senate. This isn't the GOP of 1974 and they will never cross over in enough numbers. They won't do it even if video tapes of Bush personally giving hush money to Scooter Libby turn up. Let's not kid ourselves about that reality. The fact is that impeachment will probably bring their caucus together.

But even so, that's not necessarily a good enough reason not to do it. It could be useful, if only to tie the administration up in knots until they leave the scene. But the risks are high that if you don't have a specific (and somewhat simple) crime to point to and a good chance of at least getting a quick impeachment vote in the House, that it could blow back pretty hard on the Dems. This is not because people like Bush and don't want him out of office. It's because they see that the presidential campaign is in full swing and know that Bush will be out of office soon anyway. That means many of them will likely be susceptible to the inevitable GOP screeching that the petty Democrats are playing politics, going for payback, wasting time etc. And the media will be thrilled to help the Republicans make that case.

I would also add that before a move like this is made, we need broad public support for it. As of now, less than half of all Americans support impeaching the president. If we get to a point were a full 65% of the American public supported impeachment, then there would be a compelling enough reason to follow through on it. Until that time, however, I would suggest focusing on getting a Democrat into the White House in 2008.

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.

Suck on it Pork Rinds

More from Pavement

Perspective

Josh Marshall has two posts which offer some interesting insights on the Scooter Libby brouhaha:

The first:

Paris Hilton did more time than Scooter Libby.

The second:

I have to say that the claim that Wilson's charges have been discredited, disproved or even meaningfully challenged is simply false. What he said on day one is all true. It's really as simple as that.

There's a tendency, even among too many people of good faith and good politics, to shy away from asserting and admitting this simple fact because Wilson has either gone on too many TV shows or preened too much in some photo shoot. But that is disreputable and shameful. The entire record of this story has been under a systematic, unfettered and, sadly, largely unresisted attack from the right for four years. Key facts have been buried under an avalanche of misinformation. The then-chairman of the senate intelligence committee made his committee an appendage of the White House and himself the president's bawd and issued a report built on intentional falsehood and misdirection.

No one is perfect. The key dividing line is who's telling the truth and who's lying. Wilson is on the former side, his critics the latter. Everything else is triviality.

The conservative meme on this, is that the charges which got this all started are crap. The right wing is trying desperately to make this point part of the conventional wisdom. It is essential for those of us who want greater accountability from the Bush Administration that we fight them tooth and nail on this point.

Libbytalk

from Editor & Publisher

From the [New York] Times' Tuesday editorial: "Mr. Bush’s assertion that he respected the verdict but considered the sentence excessive only underscored the way this president is tough on crime when it’s committed by common folk ...

"Within minutes of the Libby announcement, the same Republican commentators who fulminated when Paris Hilton got a few days knocked off her time in a county lockup were parroting Mr. Bush’s contention that a fine, probation and reputation damage were 'harsh punishment' enough for Mr. Libby.

"Presidents have the power to grant clemency and pardons. But in this case, Mr. Bush did not sound like a leader making tough decisions about justice. He sounded like a man worried about what a former loyalist might say when actually staring into a prison cell."

The [Washington] Post, which had often mocked the court case, declares today: "We agree that a pardon would have been inappropriate and that the prison sentence of 30 months was excessive. But reducing the sentence to no prison time at all, as Mr. Bush did -- to probation and a large fine -- is not defensible. ... Mr. Bush, while claiming to 'respect the jury's verdict,' failed to explain why he moved from 'excessive' to zero.

"It's true that the felony conviction that remains in place, the $250,000 fine and the reputational damage are far from trivial. But so is lying to a grand jury. To commute the entire prison sentence sends the wrong message about the seriousness of that offense."

Seattle Post-Intelligencer: "President Bush's commutation of a pal's prison sentence counts as a most shocking act of disrespect for the U.S. justice system. It's the latest sign of the huge repairs to American concepts of the rule of law that await the next president."

The Denver Post found that "such big-footing of other branches of government is not unprecedented with this administration. The president's abuse of signing statements show his disrespect for Congress' power to make law. His insistence that terror detainees at Guantanamo Bay be denied Habeas Corpus rights mocks legal tradition. It's a shame that his actions in the Libby affair will add to that list. Libby should be held accountable for his crimes."

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel's editorial declares that "mostly this commutation fails on the most basic premise. There was no miscarriage of justice in Libby's conviction or his sentence. The trial amply demonstrated that he stonewalled. Like President Clinton's 11th-hour pardons of an ill-deserving few, this commutation is a travesty."

New York's Daily News: "However misbegotten was the probe by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, the fact is that Libby did commit a federal crime and the fact is also that he was convicted in a court of law. Thankfully, Bush did not pardon Libby outright, but time in the slammer was in order. Sixty days, say, wouldn't have hurt the justice system a bit."

Chicago Tribune believes that "in nixing the prison term, Bush sent a terrible message to citizens and to government officials who are expected to serve the public with integrity. The way for a president to discourage the breaking of federal laws is by letting fairly rendered consequences play out, however uncomfortably for everyone involved. The message to a Scooter Libby ought to be the same as it is for other convicts: You do the crime, you do the time."

The Arizona Republic: "We thought Scooter Libby was going through the criminal justice system. Just like anyone else. Then, President Bush whipped out a get-out-of-jail-free card. This is the wrong game to play on a very public stage."

San Jose Mercury News: "Other presidents have doled out pardons and the like, usually on the way out of office. It's never pretty. But few have placed themselves above the law as Bush, Cheney and friends repeatedly have done by trampling civil liberties and denying due process. Chalk up another point for freedom. Scooter's, at least."

The Sacramento Bee: President Bush, a recent story in the Washington Post tells us, is obsessed with the question of how history will view him. He has done himself no favors on that count by commuting the prison term of I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby."

But Clinton did it?!

The reports from the mainstream pundits are in, and the gold medal for foolishness goes to Tom Curry. The main point of this commentary is that the public reaction to the Libby pardon will be the same as the reaction to Clinton's pardons:

President Bush’s commutation of the 30-month prison sentence of former vice presidential aide Lewis “Scooter” Libby fit the pattern set by his predecessors.

And the reaction to these acts of clemency had a familiar ring.

Compare “the arrogance of this administration's disdain for the law and its belief it operates with impunity are breathtaking” to the statement that the president “will never live down the arrogance of his final departure.”

The first “arrogance” quote came Monday from Democratic presidential contender Bill Richardson. The second quote came from Jim Webb, now the Democratic senator from Virginia, criticizing Clinton’s pardon of Rich in an opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal in 2001.

So...to Curry (and with the vast majority of the press) there is a simple algebra, Bush = Clinton. Yet, this couldn't be further from the truth. There are two major differences here:

1. Clinton was a hell of a lot more popular than Bush is. Bush is seen as a stubborn dolt, while Clinton was seen as a vibrant, popular (though personally flawed) leader.
   
2. The circumstances surrounding the two are vastly different. With Clinton, the criticisms levied against him were part of a conservative witch hunt. The country had just endured 6 years of endless partisan investigations, which yielded nothing substantive. With Bush, the leak investigation yielded real findings and revealed that the White House was willing to subvert national security in order to retaliate against a critic.
   

In the end, I think the American public will respond much more harshly to the pardon than the Washington press corps is willing to believe. The Bush administration might not see a huge drop in overall approval ratings, rather I believe you will see more people go from 'somewhat disapprove' to 'strongly disapprove'.

Not surprised

Libby's sentence was commuted, and I am firmly in agreement with Atrios about the coming press coverage. The White House essentially got away with a very serious crime, and no one will call them on it.

TERRORISTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!

Josh Marshall posts an email from an American visiting overseas. The e-mailer comments on the difference in press coverage from CNN and BBC. CNN is treating the terrorists attacks as proof that the end is near, while the BBC is keeping their wits about them:

I am in the last day of business meetings in Bangkok, and have been watching the media response with great interest. My hotel TV offers both CNN and BBC news coverage, and the difference between them is remarkable. When the Glasgow attack became known, CNN offered non-stop coverage which preempted all normal programming. The attackers were defined in no uncertain terms as Al-Quaeda members, despite any conclusive evidence of same.

In stark contrast, BBC offered quite detailed coverage of the attack, but continued with normal programming covering weather, sports, international affairs, etc. BBC was quite careful not to ascribe any specific Al-Quaeda membership, and seemed to be more comfortable describing the attackers as "influenced by other Al-Quaeda types". CNN created the image of a major world crisis, while BBC presented an isolated but obviously troubling event.

What is the coverage like in Norway, Pork Rinds?

Misunderstood Genius?

The Washington Post has an article today dissecting the psyche of the President. It is an extremely odd read and ultimately maddening, as the author did his best to assume that Bush thinks like a rational person.

There is so much in the article that I don't dare try to analyze it all here (although you can check out some thoughtful analysis here, here, here). I strongly recommend reading it. But if you want the short version of the article, I can offer it in the form of something I tell my brother:

I am not conceited, it is just that other people are too damn stupid to realize that I am awesome.

Huh?

At heart, I am really just a 14 year old.

I laughed my ass off at this.

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.

Race is no longer an issue- Whooppeee!

The 5 wise men on our Supreme Court have determined that race of students should no longer be considered when assigning schools. A group of parents sued to end the Louisville school districts policy of considering race when assigning students to competitive schools:

Louisville's schools spent 25 years under a court order to eliminate the effects of state-sponsored segregation. After a federal judge freed the Jefferson County, Ky., school board, which encompasses Louisville, from his supervision, the board decided to keep much of the court-ordered plan in place to prevent schools from re-segregating.

The lawyer for the Louisville system called the plan a success story that enjoys broad community support, including among parents of white and black students.

In a 5-4 decision the court found that Louisville's program was unfair to the white students. So, there you have it, everyone is equal now. I think they realized that racism died when Imus was taken off of the air. Unfortunately, some folks didn't get the message:

In September 2006, a group of African American high school students in Jena, Louisiana, asked the school for permission to sit beneath a "whites only" shade tree. There was an unwritten rule that blacks couldn't sit beneath the tree. The school said they didn't care where students sat. The next day, students arrived at school to see three nooses (in school colors) hanging from the tree.

The boys who hung the nooses were suspended from school for a few days. The school administration chalked it up as a harmless prank, but Jena's black population didn't take it so lightly. Fights and unrest started breaking out at school. The District Attorney, Reed Walters, was called in to directly address black students at the school and told them all he could "end their life with a stroke of the pen."

Black students were assaulted at white parties. A white man drew a loaded rifle on three black teens at a local convenience store. (They wrestled it from him and ran away.) Someone tried to burn down the school, and on December 4th, a fight broke out that led to six black students being charged with attempted murder. To his word, the D.A. pushed for maximum charges, which carry sentences of eighty years. Four of the six are being tried as adults (ages 17 & 18) and two are juveniles.

In the Age of the Dinosaurs

Next week, Glenn Beck (the Kansas City Royals of ratings for right-wing pundits) is subbing for Paula Zahn on CNN. As Joe Klein points out, this is just ridiculous. The man has nothing interesting to say, other then the traditional "I am so cool because I am so anti-political correctness", which is equivalent to wearing acid-washed jeans, listening to the Dave Matthews Band or driving a Hummer. In the words of Atrios:

But, Jeebus, what's the obsession with promoting whiny ass titty baby versions of Morton Downey Jr.? I think even cranky white guys who feel like they're the #1 victims of society are tired of listening to whiners like Beck. That era is so over.

I think media outlets like CNN are trying to be cool, like parents try to be cool with their kids. Which, inevitably, comes off as unintentionally hilarious but also kind of sad.

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'.

PBS Misses the Message

I think it is pretty clear that Americans are not enamored with either the Republican party or with conservativism, in general. The president is less popular than herpes and conservatives are quickly abandoning previous policy positions to maintain electability. PBS, however, apparently still believes that what the American public (especially PBS viewers) really wants is more Republican talking points with their political analysis as they have hired Frank Luntz to provide post debate analysis for the upcoming Democratic candidate forum.

I don't get this move, was Tom Delay or Sean Hannity not available? Luntz is great to have around if you want to put a positive spin on global warming or find an appealing word for torture, but he is the last person I want to hear from when it comes to analyzing progressive policies. PBS thinks he is the right guy to turn to and will put asses in the seats. Yet, on PBS's own schedule their biggest draw is Bill Moyers, why not have him provide some insights? He is someone that PBS viewers respect and will draw viewers. Unfortunately, however, the new media paradigm is that if a show is supposed to be political it has to have the token birdbrained conservative. Ugh.

Unadulterated Awesomeness

Yeah, it's Air Supply. You wanna make something of it?

My Adopted Son

I absolutely love this kid. This is awesome:


By the way, this is the back story.

Apparently I am a magnet for this crap

Once again, I have been spammed with one of those ridiculously jingoistic faux-patriotic e-mails from a friend of mine. I am posting it here because it is always useful to see what kind of mindset we as rational people are up against. The scary thing is, the folks that eat this kind of crap up vote and can freely reproduce:

Written by a housewife from New Jersey and sounds like it! This is one ticked off lady.

Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001?

Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan, across the Potomac from our nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania?

Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?

And I'm supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was "desecrated" when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it wet?...Well, I don't. I don't care at all.

I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.

I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a crime in Saudi Arabia.

I'll care when these thugs tell the world they are sorry for hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling slashed throat.

I'll care when the cowardly so-called "insurgents" in Iraq come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques.

I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide bombs.

I'll care when the American media stops pretending that their First Amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law instead of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights.

In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave marine roughing up an Iraqi terrorist to obtain inf ormation, know this: I don't care.

When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who have been humiliated in what amounts to a college-hazing incident, rest assured: I don't care.

When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank: I don't care.

When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and fed "special" food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being "mishandled," you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts: I don't care.

And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled "Koran" and other times "Quran." Well, Jimmy Crack Corn and --you guessed it -- I don't care!!!"

If you agree with this viewpoint, pass this on to all your E-mail friends..

Sooner or later, it'll get to the people responsible for this ridiculous behavior!

If you don't agree, then by all means hit the delete button.

Should you choose the latter, and then please don't complain when more atrocities committed by radical Muslims happen here in our great country!

It's terrifying what these people think is appropriate to do in retaliation for 9-11 and that millions of people agree with that view. It is also scary when you realize that they have no understanding of the Middle East and are pushing for more aggressive actions there. They have absolutely no idea that the terrorists who attacked us on 9-11 are not the same people who live in Iraq. To them, they are all the same. We should be able to torture a suspected insurgent in Baghdad because 19 Saudis and Yemenis attacked us.

They also have no understanding of the history or the geopolitical climate over there (not surprising). The e-mail chastises the Saudi government for their refusal to allow Bibles in the country, yet fails to recognize that the US is a major ally of the brutal regime. They fail to recognize that their own government has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children in the region, for nothing more than simple vanity. Lastly, they have no idea how the desecration of the Koran plays on the Arab Street and that it plays right into the hands of the radical elements there.

By succumbing to their own ignorance, these jingoistic folks play right into the hands of the terrorists and warlords. They foment the type of aggression and fear these radicals need to survive.

Compassionate Conservative

Just when you think this administration cannot get any more ridiculous, there is this:

While the U.S. military searches for a soldier missing in Iraq, kidnapped by insurgents possibly allied with al Qaeda, his wife back home in Massachusetts may be deported by the U.S. government.

Army Spec. Alex Jimenez, who has been missing since his unit was attacked by insurgents in Iraq on May 12, had petitioned for a green card for his wife, Yaderlin Hiraldo, whom he married in 2004.
...
Her attorney is seeking a hardship waiver, which so far the government won't grant.

What does it take to get a job with the Bush government? Not only do you need to have an IQ under 40, but apparently you must also include kitten killing as a hobby.

This Just Might be Something to Report

After a House investigation, we now find that the White House has been breaking the law with its usage of RNC email addresses. The Presidential Records Act stipulates that all executive correspondence be carried out on government property (email servers, stationary, etc.) and is archived. However, this White House has been blatantly disregarding that law. Here are some of the key findings in the investigation:

• The number of White House officials given RNC e-mail accounts is higher than previously disclosed.
• White House officials made extensive use of their RNC e-mail accounts.
• There has been extensive destruction of the e-mails of White House officials by the RNC.
• There is evidence that the Office of White House Counsel under Alberto Gonzales may have known that White House officials were using RNC e-mail accounts for official business, but took no action to preserve these presidential records.

These findings are pretty damning and I think will lead to some even more surprises. The White House was hiding all of these e-mails for a reason and it would be nice to find out why. Unfortunately, as I cruise the major news websites, this story has yet to break the front page.

Iran and the White House

Glenn Greenwald helps break down the latest NY Times article on the White House and Iran. I suggest reading the whole thing because he does a great job of analyzing the press coverage. I will, however, provide the money quote for the posting:

If this is how the media is going to report on the potential U.S.-Iran war, I'd say the odds of that conflict occuring are quite high.

Sadly, we are going to see the press behave in exactly the same way as they did in the run up to the war in Iraq. They will try to convince the public that they asked the tough questions but in the end, the administration line will be the press's line.

The Coming Narrative

From my local alt. weekly the City Paper, there is an insightful piece on how our failure in Iraq will be portrayed in the future. Essentially, those who opposed the war will become the villains and we'll be blamed for the catastrophe over there:

Whenever American troops start coming home — and for political reasons many will almost certainly start coming back before the 2008 elections — you should get ready to place the blame for losing the Iraq war anywhere but on the fools who started it. And the obvious villain in the Iraq catastrophe is you.

Yes you, you weak-kneed, terrorist-loving, America-hating dilettante.

America's loss in this war is your fault, because you took to the streets and marched against it before it even began, and correctly pointed out that the evidence about weapons of mass destruction was flimsy, and the connection to al-Qaida entirely concocted. We started off with one hand tied behind our backs because you wanted to go to the U.N. and win "legitimacy" for our righteous and groundless invasion...

Make no mistake, when all is said and done, none of the idiots that dragged us into Iraq will be held responsible. In a spellbinding display of mangled logic, the accepted wisdom will be that we lost the war because we did not successfully employ the Tinkerbell strategy.

Never Taking Responsibility

Recently on Good Morning America, Michael Moore was being interviewed by anchor-stud Chris Cuomo. During the interview, Moore took ABC and the rest of the mainstream media to task for not asking the tough questions during the run-up to the Iraq War. Cuomo nearly lost it. Here is the video:

As I have said before, the press will never take responsibility for the mess in Iraq and the role they played by laying down. Yet, this is still going on. Just yesterday during the daily press briefing, Tony Snow made the argument that increased violence in Iraq means that we are making progress.

Q Let me follow on that, because I think some American officials have called this an act of desperation. And I'm wondering how this is seen as an act of desperation. Does that mean that the terrorists are so concerned that they're sort of being shut down, and that the surge is so effective that they're now desperate to make a statement?

MR. SNOW: Well, I think, again -- a couple of things. It does fit a pattern that we see throughout the region, which is that when you see things moving towards success, or when you see signs of success, that there are acts of violence. We saw that, certainly -- we've seen that in Lebanon, once again, today, tragically. We also saw it earlier in Lebanon. We have seen it on a number of occasions where, when Israel and the Palestinians seem to be getting close to a deal, there are kidnapings and acts of violence.

What you have seen in the last couple of months -- it's well documented -- is, increasingly, Iraqis are turning against al Qaeda. And that has been one of the sort of heartening developments. You've not only seen it in Anbar Province, but you've seen it elsewhere.

So one of the responses one might expect for al Qaeda at a time like this -- when the Iraqi people are turning against them as foreign fighters, essentially invading the country and trying to commit acts of bloodshed against innocents in order to blow the country apart -- that it would be one of those acts of desperation once again to try to get the Iraqis to fight one another, rather than training their sights on al Qaeda.

By utilizing Snow's logic, we would assume that decreased violence would indicate that things are actually going poorly. In the mind of any sane individual however, this line of reasoning would be forcefully rejected. If the press were really doing their job and asking the tough questions, Snow would have been laughed out of the room. Perhaps, one of the reporters would have said "That is the most ridiculous load of bullshit I have ever heard. Ever." Instead, the follow-up to his response was the following:

Q This could actually be read, then, as a sign of success for the American --

This is exactly what Moore was talking about, rather than exposing the twisted logic and half-truths of the Bush Administration, the media continues to lap up whatever half-assed explanations are being doled out.

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?

Food for Thought

Here is an interesting graph of presidential popularity from Truman to our current president.

Who is the only president to leave office more popular than when they entered?

Lieberman should leave this kind of thing to the adults

On Sunday's Face the Nation, the increasingly irrelevant Joe Lieberman (DB-CT) continued with his incessant saber rattling. In this addition, he advocates for military action against Iran:

“I think we have to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq,” Lieberman said. Host Bob Schieffer followed-up: “Let’s just stop right there. Because I think you probably made some news here, Senator Lieberman. You’re saying that if the Iranians don’t let up, that the United States should take military action?” “I am,” Lieberman responded.

I am not sure which planet Lieberman lives on, but it certainly isn't ours. Fortunately, Wes Clark has offered a nice smack down:

This kind of rhetoric is irresponsible and only plays into the hands of President Ahmadinejad, and those who seek an excuse for military action. What we need now is full-fledged engagement with Iran. We should be striving to bridge the gulf of almost 30 years of hostility and only when all else fails should there be any consideration of other options. The Iranians are very much aware of US military capabilities. They don't need Joe Lieberman to remind them that we are the militarily dominant power in the world today.

Only someone who never wore the uniform or thought seriously about national security would make threats at this point. What our soldiers need is responsible strategy, not a further escalation of tensions in the region. Senator Lieberman must act more responsibly and tone down his threat machine.

What puzzles me is, why was Lieberman even given the opportunity to talk about this? Is Bob Schieffer some kind of uber practical joker? Does anyone really care what Joe Lieberman thinks? He is a very silly man with silly ideas and it would be best to ignore him. In fact, that would be an awesome practical joke, if everyone in the US just chose to ignore Lieberman, he would get all pouty and complain about how everyone is behaving too partisan towards him. Classic.

Memories...

Over the weekend, I happened to be shopping in one of those big box stores (I have been unsuccessful in finding an independently owned hardware store in Philly) and I heard a song that I haven't heard in a very long time.

The song took me back to my junior year in high school (1992) when my classmates and I were debating which song would be our 'prom song'. I was a strong advocate for the U2 song 'One', and while, in retrospect, I would admit that it was not the most appropriate song; I stand by my assertion that 'One' was a pretty kick-ass song.

Unfortunately I did not win the argument, instead my classmates picked a song that was supposed to celebrate the non-romantic aspects of prom- A song that would deter dance floor 'make-out sessions'.

So, when prom night came my entire junior class sat in rapt attention as we waited for the dancing to begin. All of us males in our tacky rented tuxedos and the females in their overpriced prom gowns patiently waited for the music to begin. Yet, we kept waiting...and waiting...until we all came to the realization that the DJ was not going to show up. There we were, a mob of amped up hormone machines with no music to dance to- more importantly- no prom song to dance to. What was the song?

This was it.

It doesn't get any more ironic then that.

They Just Don't Care

A couple of months ago, I made the prediction that Alberto Gonzales would not resign. Tomorrow, we will see how this prediction holds up, as the Senate's vote of no confidence (while legally meaningless) carries a lot of symbolic weight. The latest indications from Tony Snow, however, suggests that I am right:

WALLACE: By the way, real quickly, on the vote of no confidence on Gonzales, if you get a number of Republicans joining in a vote of no confidence, will that shake the President’s determination to keep Gonzales on the job?

SNOW: Not a bit. Purely symbolic vote.

WALLACE: And no effect on the President.

SNOW: No. what you’ve got here is a senate that’s had a great deal of difficulty delivering on any of its promises. Furthermore, it is perfectly obvious that the President has the right to hire and fire people who serve at his pleasure. Nobody found anything untoward in terms of what happened. Therefore, as a consequence, there’s an attempt to pull this thing like a piece of taffy, seeing if there’s any political advantage in it. There’s not. So what we’ll end up having is people burning off a day expressing their opinions and then we’ll have an opportunity to move on.

No matter, how badly this guy has screwed up, the President is not going to let him leave. The clear message from the White House is that they just don't give a rat's ass what Congress or the American people think.

Please Stop Mr. Broder

Will the Washington please put David Broder out of his misery? Maybe send him to New Mexico or Idaho? His column from today is a damn embarrassment as he voices his frustration that Scooter Libby was prosecuted by Patrick Fitzgerald:

Despite the absence of any underlying crime, Fitzgerald filed charges against Libby for denying to the FBI and the grand jury that he had discussed the Wilson case with reporters. Libby was convicted on the testimony of reporters from NBC, the New York Times and Time magazine -- a further provocation to conservatives.

I think they have a point. This whole controversy is a sideshow -- engineered partly by the publicity-seeking former ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife and heightened by the hunger in parts of Washington to "get" Rove for something or other.

Like other special prosecutors before him, Fitzgerald got caught up in the excitement of the case and pursued Libby relentlessly, well beyond the time that was reasonable.

You see, this whole unfortunate business was not the fault of the Bush Administration. Instead, Broder blames Wilson and some unnamed evildoers who were out to get Karl Rove. Scooter Libby and the Bush Administration are the victims here. Yet in the very next paragraph, Mr. Broder is forced to admit that Libby broke the law:

Nonetheless, on the fundamental point, Walton and Fitzgerald have it right. Libby let his loyalty to his boss and to the administration cloud his judgment -- and perhaps his memory -- in denying that he was part of the effort to discredit the Wilson pair. Lying to a grand jury is serious business, especially when it is done by a person occupying a high government position where the public trust is at stake.

Contrast his reaction on this matter, to what he had to say with the Clinton impeachment (from Atrios):

One of my favorite columns by Broder was when he got in a high snit when a bunch of history professors signed a letter condemning the Clinton impeachment. The beginning and ending:

When academics decide to become activists, they sometimes bring badly needed wisdom and perspective to raging political debates. But when they plunge in heedlessly, they risk looking ridiculous.

Both sides were on display last week at a hotel ballroom where three noted American historians -- speaking for more than 400 of their profession -- unloaded a broadside condemnation of the impeachment proceedings the House has voted to begin against President Clinton.

The rhetoric of their statement, read by Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. of City University of New York, began on a relatively calm note and built to a tantrum.
...

This tenured trashing of Congress for meeting its responsibility says more about the state of the history profession than about the law of the land.

Class dismissed.

So in the warped mind of David Broder- the Clinton witch hunt, which never resulted in criminal prosecution and wasted millions of tax dollars, was the right thing to do. The investigation into the Bush Administration's actions, which led to the outing of an undercover agent who worked as a specialist in non-conventional weapons, not that big of a deal. God help me.

Why you should care about Tibet

We've all probably seen the 'Save Tibet' bumper stickers. At times, it seems like a cliché of bumper-sticker do-gooders. But, underneath this sentiment is very real substance.

But, why should we care now? Heck, China has occupied Tibet since 1949. Two major reasons:

China's economic rise, and continued integration to the world community, while continuing human rights abuses against the Tibetan people.

Death- An estimated 1.2 million people have died since the Chinese occupation began.

Torture and imprisonment- continue to this day.

• An Amnesty International 2004 report details the continued imprisonment of over 100 Buddhist Monks/Nuns, trial and execution of Tibetan dissidents without public disclosure of "evidence [for as little as carrying information on the Dali Llama], forced return of Tibetans to China from Nepal.
• As recently as Sept 2006, Tibetan adults and children fleeing Chinese controlled Tibet were arrested, tortured [and in the cases of adults] killed.
  

Cultural Genocide- 6,500 monasteries destroyed during the initial "cultural revolution. Additional, but more recent, destruction can be seen here

Yet, China is the upcoming host of the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Huh?

Contrast the mission of the Olympics

the goal of the Olympic Movement is to contribute to building a peaceful and better world by educating youth through sport practised without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play.

with the details from the Amnesty International report
The Olympics Countdown: Failing to keep Human Rights Promises

The report finds that though China has made some progress in reforming the death penalty system, its record in other crucial human rights areas has gone downhill -- ironically, sometimes in the name of preparing for the Olympics.

"Flagrant human rights abuses continue in China, and the appalling 're-education through labor' system seems to be flourishing in the run up to the 2008 Olympic Games," said Larry Cox, executive director of Amnesty International USA (AIUSA). "This is contrary to the Olympic Charter ideal and clearly negates the 'preservation of human dignity' that Beijing, as an Olympic host, has committed to uphold."

As the International Campaign for Tibet points out

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) awarded Beijing the 2008 Olympic Games in 2001, disregarding international criticism of China's human rights record. Both the IOC and the Chinese have argued that the Games will "improve human rights in China" and therefore Tibet. However, as we approach the Games, human rights violations remain systematic and widespread, and China has implemented new restrictions on the media and freedom of information. We believe China and the IOC should be held accountable to the promises they made during Beijing's bid for the 2008 Olympics.

What can you do? In preparation for the 2008 Olympics, The International Campaign for Tibet is spearheading a campaign to use the Olympics to put pressure on China, Race for Tibet.

I got nothing

Just click here. Un-f-ing-believable.

The glory of the free market

Over at the Time Magazine blog, former Rep. Dick Armey has a lengthy post about the hazards of universal health care. This is one of the stupidest points in his argument:

Look at the healthy components of our health care system. What they have in common is a large measure of independence from government subsidies and price regulation. For example, eye surgery centers, fertility specialists and cosmetic dental surgery. Costs have fallen dramatically, innovation abounds and safety improves.

I am not sure if he realizes this but each of the medical procedures he brings up would be considered ELECTIVE. Those who wish to receive this type of care are, typically, volunteering to undergo the procedure. They have the luxury of shopping around to find the best price, and if they don't find a price that suits them, can opt out of the procedure with no serious consequences.

I suppose our health care system would work better if everyone could afford to sit around and find the best deal. Unfortunately, someone sick with pneumonia or suffering from cancer cannot weigh their options carefully. The type of care they need is immediate and will only worsen if they decide to shop around.

BTW, this man has a Ph.D. in economics. Oy.

A Tale of Two Southern Candidates

Yesterday, I wrote about the media love fest for actor Fred Thompson. And today, Media Matters has an interesting piece on the ways the mainstream media ignores certain traits of conservative candidates, which might paint them in an unflattering way. I thought this particular segment on Fred Thompson was interesting:

So when longtime lobbyist and Hollywood actor Fred Thompson -- a man who once rented a red pickup truck in order to campaign in Tennessee as a man of the people -- indicated this week that he would seek the Republican presidential nomination, we knew how the media would describe him: Authentic. Folksy.

Let's back up a moment: Thompson didn't even drive the rented pickup, as The Washington Monthly reported in 1996:

Finishing his talk, Thompson shakes a few hands, then walks out with the rest of the crowd to the red pickup truck he made famous during his 1994 Senate campaign. My friend stands talking with her colleagues as the senator is driven away by a blond, all-American staffer. A few minutes later, my friend gets into her car to head home. As she pulls up to the stop sign at the parking lot exit, rolling up to the intersection is Senator Thompson, now behind the wheel of a sweet silver luxury sedan. He gives my friend a slight nod as he drives past. Turning onto the main road, my friend passes the school's small, side parking area. Lo and behold: There sits the abandoned red pickup, along with the all-American staffer.

The pickup was, literally, a rented prop designed to help a wealthy actor/Washington lobbyist/trial lawyer play the role of salt-of-the-earth populist.

Compare the rather conspicuous silence on this aspect with Fred Thompson with the scorn that has been heaped upon John Edwards for getting an expensive haircut. Both of these men come from the working class, yet John Edwards is the only one called out as a hypocrite. For Thompson, the pundits are willing to turn the other way when any incongruities are revealed. This is eerily reminiscent of Bush's campaigns in both 1999 and 2003, he got the manly man treatment from the press even though he was an east coast elite. While both John Kerry and Al Gore were treated as effete intellectuals.

Really Manly Men

I am royally annoyed by the media hubbub surrounding the entry of actor Fred Thompson into the 2008 presidential race. It is like the last 6 years haven't happened. The major pundits are all a twitter over Thompson's manliness just like they were all a twitter over Bush's masculinity in 1999.

Glenn Greenwald does a great job of breaking this all down in one of his recent blog posts. I especially like this:

The only thing that makes Thompson a "tough guy" is that he pretends to be one; he play-acts as one. There is nothing real about it. But in the same way that George Bush's ranch and fighter pilot costumes (along with his war advocacy) sent media stars swooning over his masculinity and "toughness," the Howard Finemans and Mark Halperins, along with the Bush followers in need of a new authoritarian Leader, are so intensely hungry for this faux masculine power that the illusion, the absurd play-acting, is infinitely more valuable to them than any reality, than any genuine attributes of "toughness."

Like President Bush before him, Thompson has no unique qualifications to be president. He served for a very short time in the Senate and before that his only major governmental role was as a lawyer for the Watergate commission. All this man has done is master the role of acting tough. In that case, why don't we nominate grade school bullies to public office? Better yet, lets hire doms, I mean their whole shtick is to act tough.

Video Fun

I never knew there was a video for this song. Sweet Serendipity.

Life imitating art

It seems the President is taking the whole monkey comparison thing to heart.

Friends of his from Texas were shocked recently to find him nearly wild-eyed, thumping himself on the chest three times while he repeated “I am the president!"

I just hope he doesn't start throwing poo. That would be embarrassing.

Klassic Konservative Komment

Can you guess who said this?

But do you understand what the New York Times wants, and the far-left want? They want to break down the white, Christian, male power structure, which you’re a part, and so am I, and they want to bring in millions of foreign nationals to basically break down the structure that we have.

You can find the answer here. At least he is being honest.

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.

There is something wrong with him

My brother-in-law is a very good runner, but after seeing these pictures I am convinced he shouldn't run while suffering from intestinal issues. I mean good Lord, it looks like he is going to burst. He would probably feel better if he ran in a diaper. Just sayin'

Sen. Coburn is an ass

About 9 years ago I was fortunate enough to become a member of AmeriCorps as a VISTA volunteer. I moved away from my comfy home in Massachusetts to live in rural Montana in order to help teens and children avoid drugs, alcohol and pregnancy. It was easily the hardest job(s) I have ever had. With little formal training, I became a grant writer, community organizer, non-profit manager, juvenile justice counselor, risk management analyst and local celebrity. I worked 60 to 80 hours a week and got paid $11,000 for the year.

Working in Montana that year was an experience I still treasure. I made a measurable difference in the lives of hundreds of kids, made some wonderful friends and tested my intellectual/emotional limits.

This is why I am so pissed off after reading this. Sen. Coburn (R-OK) has decided to hijack a symbolic senatorial resolution which praises the efforts of AmeriCorps members. Instead, Coburn has the bill on hold and will only release it if he can make substantial edits to the bill. Those edits include, open criticisms of the program for wasting government money and taking out any language which heaps too much praise on previous volunteers (you can read the proposed edits here).

Now I am quite certain that my fellow AmeriCorps members and I will be able to get on with our lives, with or without this resolution. We chose to serve because we thought it was the right thing to do and we wanted to do our part. What makes me mad is that Coburn is full of shit. As you will note above, the government paid me $11,000 for my service. On grant writing alone, I brought my community over $50,000. The idea that this program is a waste of government resources is ludicrous. And then, to temper any praise which he believes as effusive is petty (although this is the same man who got mad at NBC for showing an unedited version of Schindler's List because there was some nudity in the movie). I am very glad this party is no longer in the majority.

Falwell Lovefest

Jerry Falwell died today, and good riddance. There's some very 'interesting' comments on Falwell in the comments section of his unofficial obituary here.

The press and the salt of the earth

I have had a fun time watching this debate play out over the past couple of days. Glenn Greenwald has been taking David Broder (and the Washington press corps) to task for pretending to believe that Broder represents 'the people'. Joe Klein, from Time magazine, has consequently come to the defense of Broder and the Beltway press for what he perceives as honest journalism.

On the whole, Greenwald is definitely on the right side of the issue:

My point is that Beltway pundits are far too insulated and detached from the people whom they baselessly claim to represent, not that leaving the Beltway is bad. The fact that it is supposed to be some sort of commendable or distinguishing attribute that Broder goes on field trips to America in order to study how the "ordinary people" think -- much the way a zoologist travels to the jungle to observe the behavior of different species -- illustrates that point.

Yet, I think he misses out on the larger problem, which Digby articulates quite well. The problem with Broder's thinking is that he has mythologized the average American. He, and the journalists/pundits that follow him, have created an idea of America that just doesn't exist. The Beltway press likes to believe that once you escape the confines of city-life you will find a land of hearty hairy chested church goers. These mythical Americans possess unfailing moral compasses and a sophisticated cynicism of government.

As someone who has spent the majority of their time living in the communities Broder likes to dream about, I can say without hesitation that he is 100% wrong. Don't get me wrong, I love where I came from, but there is definitely a darker side to these 'salt-of-the-earth' working-class communities. My own experience has been that these places are shockingly racist, sexist and openly hostile to 'others'. There may be ham and bean church suppers, but at the same time, there are far too many stories about people who had to leave town because they dared to express their sexual orientation openly.

Yet Broder and his ilk, don't want to deal with this inconvenient reality. He would like to continue with the charade that there is a magical place where average Americans live. As such, we (the 'actual' average Americans) will continue to suffer the consequences of a modern punditry obsessed with capturing the pretend thoughts of fairy-tale Americans.

Nice View

I caught this picture by my friend Caralyn on her Flickr account. It is from my friend Mike's deck in Center City, Philly. It may very well be the greatest deck in the world. This is just part of the view.

My legs hurt

Spent the morning running the Broad Street Run today. I would have won but because I am so awesome they made me run it backwards.

It is really hard to run 10 miles backwards.

Bush Fatigue

I haven't gone through all of the coverage of the latest Republican debate, but in the few quick glances I have had, not one news source has suggested that the GOP nominee would have to fight against President Bush's negative image.

Let's compare that to 2000. When Al Gore was running there was the widespread belief that he would need to distance himself from President Clinton in order to win. The conventional wisdom was that the country was suffering from 'Clinton fatigue' and the American people were sick of his administration. What was the rationale for this belief? With impressive approval ratings, our strong economy and equally strong international reputation, there was nothing to base this belief on.

In tonight's debate, there was little talk about how the candidates could rehab the GOP image. No one, to my mind, brought up the fact that the current Republican president is wildly unpopular. Instead, the real question was, how fast can you run towards G.W.B. Contrary to all available evidence, the GOP candidates are trying their damnedest to be the next President Bush.

I have only one thing to say in response. Thank you.

IOKIYAR

Remember a couple of weeks ago when CNN was all a tither over Nancy Pelosi visiting Syria? Some on CNN thought the trip meant that Pelosi was not only putting her job as SotH in jeopardy, but also the safety of this country.

Well...Condi Rice is visiting Syria, and what has CNN got to say about that? Do you think they brought up the fact that very recently the Bush administration was scolding Pelosi for visiting Syria?

As you might expect---crickets.

I know this is long...

I was under the impression that we had moved beyond a certain ugly chapter in American history; like slavery and the show Full House, we as a society had seen the error of our ways and did away with the chain e-mail. Unfortunately, I have an old friend who still doles these out from time to time, and what's even worse. He is a conservative. I usually ignore these emails, but today I got one that really annoyed me. Here it is, and while I know it is ungodly long, I thought you should read all of it:

JAY LENO...."HITS THE NAIL ON THE HEAD"

Pretty asstitute for a comedian, I'd say! Go Jay!!!

"The other day I was reading Newsweek magazine and came across some poll data I found rather hard to believe. It must be true given the source, right?

The Newsweek poll alleges that 67 percent of Americans are unhappy with the direction the country is headed and 69 percent of the country is unhappy with the performance of the president. In essence 2/3s of the citizenry just ain't happy and want a change.

So being the knuckle dragger I am, I started thinking, ''What we are so unhappy about?''

Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter?

Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy folks have a job? Maybe it is the ability to walk into a grocery store at any time and see more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last year?

Maybe it is the ability to drive from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean without having to present identification papers as we move through each state?

Or possibly the hundreds of clean and safe motels we would find along the way that can provide temporary shelter? I guess having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine from around the world is just not good enough.

Or could it be that when we wreck our car, emergency workers show up and provide services to help all and even send a helicopter to take you to the hospital.

Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who own a home. You may be upset with knowing that in the unfortunate case of a fire, a group of trained firefighters will appear in moments and use top notch equipment to extinguish the flames thus saving you, your family and your belongings.

Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat screen TVs, a burglar or prowler intrudes , an officer equipped with a gun and a bullet-proof vest will come to defend you and your family against attack or loss. This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free of bombs or militias raping and pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods where 90
percent of teenagers own cell phones and computers.

How about the complete religious, social and political freedoms we enjoy that are the envy of everyone in the world? Maybe that is what has 67 percent of you folks unhappy.

Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S., yet has a great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are. The most blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about what we don't have, and what we hate about the country instead of thanking the good Lord we live here.

I know, I know. What about the president who took us into war and has no plan to get us out? The president who has a measly 31 percent approval rating? Is this the same president who guided the nation in the dark days after 9/11? The president that cut taxes to bring an economy out of recession? Could this be the same guy who has been called every name in the book for succeeding in keeping all the spoiled ungrateful brats safe
from terrorist attacks?

The commander in chief of an all-volunteer army that is out there defending you and me? Did you hear how bad the President is on the news or talk show? Did this news affect you so much, make you so unhappy you couldn't take a look around for yourself and see all the good things and be glad?

Think about it......are you upset at the President because he actually caused you personal pain OR is it because the "Media" told you he was failing to kiss your sorry ungrateful behind every day.

Make no mistake about it. The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have volunteered to serve, and in many cases may have died for your freedom. There is currently no draft in this country. They didn't have to go.

They are able to refuse to go and end up with either a ''general'' discharge, an ''other than honorable'' discharge or, worst case scenario, a ''dishonorable'' discharge after a few days in the brig.

So why then the flat-out discontentment in the minds of 69 percent of Americans? Say what you want but I blame it on the media. If it bleeds it leads and they specialize in bad news. Everybody will watch a car crash with blood and guts. How many will watch kids selling lemonade at the corner? The media knows this and media outlets are for-profit corporations. They offer what sells , and when criticized, try to defend their actions by "justifying" them in one way or another. Just ask why they tried to allow a murderer like O.J. Simpson to write a book about how he didn't kill his wife, but if he did he would have done it this way......Insane!

Stop buying the negativism you are fed everyday by the media. Shut off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New York Times for the bottom of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have as a country. There is exponentially more good than bad.

We are among the most blessed people on Earth and should thank God several times a day, or at least be thankful and appreciative."

"With hurricanes, tornados, fires out of control, mud slides, flooding, severe thunderstorms tearing up the country from one end to another, and with the threat of bird flu and terrorist attacks, "Are we sure this is a good time to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance?"

Jay Leno

Not content to let this one go, I figured I would offer a retort and spammed him right back. Here is what I had to say:

Alright…my thinking on this is that since Tom is well aware of my political leanings he sent this to provoke some sort of response. I am happy to say that I will not disappoint him and I count myself fortunate that Tommy sent me this essay; as it isn’t often you encounter this kind of stupidity in your everyday life. It’s like watching someone cook on a charcoal grill indoors or cut their toenails with a chainsaw…

First off, Jay Leno may be an absolute hack as a comic, but he is off the hook when it comes to writing this article. The guy who wrote this is an even bigger hack named Craig Smith who is an adjunct Professor of Law at Santa Barbara/Ventura College of Law. You can see the original article here and it was published on a far-right website that would make Ann Coulter blush. I found this all out by using the ‘Google’.

Anywho…

What is Mr. Smith’s larger point? From what I can gather, he wants Americans to stop reading, watching and listening to the news. He seriously believes that everything would be wonderful if the U.S. populace would all just collectively put their heads in the sand. Instead of a citizenry that is actively engaged and interested in pressing national matters, he wants the sort of blind allegiance you find in religious cults and herds of sheep.

This kind of thinking might work if you live in a third world dictatorship or are a Fox News viewer; but in a democracy, the system doesn’t work if those being governed aren’t well informed. Fortunately, our country’s founders were smarter than Mr. Smith and knew that this country would fail miserably if there wasn’t an independent press.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I have plenty of problems with the way the press operates in this country. There are far too many stories about missing/dead white women (e.g. Anna Nicole Smith, Natalie Holloway, the runaway bride) and things that go bump in the night. Yet I, and other sane people, don’t jump to the ridiculous conclusion that the way to solve this problem is to only focus on the good news. While Mr. Smith would like to hear about all the wonderful lemonade stands, magical ponies and schools being painted in Iraq, I would like to know what is really going on in the world and with our government. Why? Well…because that’s what it means to be patriotic.

For all of the wonderful things that our country offers, there are also some disturbing trends that we as citizens cannot afford to conveniently overlook. The 67% of us who believe the country is headed in the wrong direction have good reason to feel this way. Over the last 6 years in this country, we have seen infant mortality increase, bankruptcy filings increase, poverty increase, income inequality grow and homicide rates increase. Worldwide, we see increases in political unrest, terrorism and spread of infectious disease. It is for these reasons, and a slew of others, that the majority of the American public worries about where our country is headed.

In addition, the majority of us can plainly see that the man living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is an abject failure. George W. Bush, during his tenure has presided over not one, not two but three of the greatest catastrophes in American history. First, when faced with the exhortations of this country’s intelligence experts in early 2001, he decided to ignore their warnings about the threat of terrorism and instead wanted to focus on creating a missile defense shield and vacationing in Texas. Second, when faced with the evidence that Saddam Hussein did not represent a threat to national security and that Iraq would likely decay into chaos if we were not careful during the reconstruction; he decided to ignore their advice and instead rode on a fighter jet to declare himself victorious. Lastly, when faced with the sobering television coverage of New Orleans being systematically destroyed by Hurricane Katrina, he decided to quietly sit that disaster out.

In some way, I wish I could be as blissfully ignorant as Mr. Smith and the remaining 33% who think things are just peachy. Life would be easier if I could love the president as a dog loves its master. Yet, if we all felt this way, we would be abdicating our responsibility to both our nation and our fellow countrymen. This country rose in prominence and offered hope to the rest of the world precisely because so many of those who came before us refused to stick their heads in the sand, they demanded more out of their leaders, their neighbors and themselves. I only wish Mr. Smith felt the same.

I don't think he is going to be very happy with me.

Mission Accomplished?

OReilly at his paranoid best

And, here's the Rebuttal from Media Matters

Cyber Stalking

My brother-in-law has an unhealthy interest in me. I wonder if all those potatoes he eats and whiskey he drinks has finally done him in.

Good News for News

I don't like to celebrate the failings of others, but I was happy to see this recent article in the Philly Inquirer:

CBS executives deny it, but there's a growing feeling within the network that Katie Couric is an expensive, unfixable mistake.

So unfixable that Couric - the first woman to anchor a network nightly newscast solo - may leave CBS Evening News, probably after the 2008 presidential elections, to assume another role at the network, CBS sources say.

I don't think the problem for CBS was bringing Couric in as their newest anchor. She seems like a very bright person who could otherwise easily handle the job handed to her. Rather, the problem lies with the decision by CBS News to soften their nightly news. Instead of reporting the news and offering well-thought out analysis, CBS went with a newscast that was heavy on features and half-assed opinions.

They abdicated their responsibility to the American people by insisting that their newscast entertain the audience as opposed to informing the audience. Major news organizations, following the lead of Fox News, have tried to build up fan bases. The news networks have become lifestyle brands and have done their best to segment their audiences based upon these lifestyles.

What this article suggests is that American people are beginning to resist the networks attempts to get away with this. After getting bogged down in a ridiculous war, we no longer want to be dazzled with the news. We want to be presented with the best reporting available so that we can make sane decisions. Thank God.

Harry Reid is Right About the Iraq War

from The Ostroy Report

The Republicans don’t like Harry Reid and his assessment of the war. But too bad. This is not Harry Reid’s mess. This military disaster belongs 100% to Bush and the Republican Party. This is their war. If they don’t like it being called a failure, or that it is "lost," then they should demonstrate its successes and spare us the incessant partisan rhetoric. Stop regurgitating all this BS about progress and success and show it to us.

A Tasty Lick

More on Gonzales

A couple of days ago I wrote that I didn't think Alberto G would resign. I know it seems strange since his performance was so abysmal; however, this was just a very public showing of how the Bush administration thinks. Dahlia Lithwick offers a nice analysis of this very point:

This record reflects either a Harvard-trained lawyer—and former state Supreme Court judge—with absolutely no command of the facts or the law, or it reveals a proponent of the unitary executive theory with absolutely nothing to prove. Gonzales' failure to even mount a defense; his posture of barely tolerating congressional inquiries; his refusal to concede that he owed the Senate any explanation or any evidence; his refusal to even accept that he bore some burden of proof—all of it tots up to a masterful display of the perfect contempt felt by the Bush executive branch for this Congress and its pretensions of oversight. In the plainest sense, Gonzales elevated the Bush legal doctrine of "Because I said so" into a public spectacle.

Viewed in that light, Gonzales did exactly what he needed to do yesterday. He took a high, inside pitch to the head for the team (nobody wants to look like a dolt on national television) but hit a massive home run for the notion that at the end of the day, congressional oversight over the executive branch is little more than empty theatre.

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.

McCain is a good singer

Whoo Hoo, that's funny! That McCain, ready to set a new high-water mark for Oval Office humor and idiotic approaches to dealing with 'evil-doers.'

He's Staying

I know there is a possibility that I will be proved wrong on this, but I stand by my assertion that, as it stands now, Gonzales will not resign. I think you can already see the way this is going to play out, as the Bush administration will continue to stall on this until it blows over.

In the meantime, the administration will play the spin that Congress is playing politics while the major media will swallow this line. Already the media has ignored the fact that the gross politicization of the Justice Department is an incredibly dangerous thing and I can't recall any major news reports which have highlighted this issue. Nevermind the fact that there has been no coverage of the specious voting fraud claims or the unequal prosecution of Democrats; instead, we are supposed to believe that this is just a vendetta on the part of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the gang.

Made In Wisconsin

Only in Wisconsin would this be a unanimous vote....

Both chambers of the Legislature unanimously gave key approval Tuesday to allow grocery and liquor stores to hand out beer samples up to 6 ounces to a person of legal drinking age.

The Vast Wasteland of Cable News

As someone that does not typically have access to cable news, I had the opportunity, recently, to catch my fill of its content. And after watching a few hours of CNN, MSNBC and Fox News, I came to the conclusion that I am quite glad not to have access as I was struck by the massive disconnect between the content of these news reports and the sensibilities of the American people.

It is quite clear when you read the polls that the average American is extremely fed up with the President and the right wing, in general. We see these people for who they really are- vile opportunists who have completely mismanaged the running of this country. Yet, in watching the coverage, these networks are living in the past. They actually believe that the public has faith in the Republican party. I think this post by Atrios captures this dynamic very well. The President is enormously unpopular but cable news stations will continue to operate under the assumption that if Democrats challenge this administration, they do so at great risk to themselves.

My concern, when I think about this coverage, is not that the American people are affected by the news. Rather, that those in charge, specifically Democrats, begin to believe that there is lukewarm support for their policies. By using these cable news networks as their barometer of conventional wisdom, they actually get a false reading on the attitudes in the general public. Consequently, we continue to get bogged down in Iraq and pursue ridiculous domestic policy because the discourse on cable news is so badly skewed towards a more conservative sensibility.

Darth Cheney

Unfortunately, Dick Cheney appears to not be welcome at ultra-conservative Brigham Young University.

The problem is this is a morally dubious man," said Andrew Christensen, a 22-year-old Republican from Salt Lake City.

Here his response here.

Wolfowitz is my hero

Damn left-wing media, reporting that Wolfowitz promoted and gave a raise to his former girlfriend. I find this hard to believe, that a neo-con bushie prick like Wolfowitz would partake in the same government patronage that brought us "Heckuva Job" Brownie and the completely incompetent AG Gonzalez. Come on, he said he made a mistake!
Update 1- this promotion came with a pay raise that was double staff rules!

Bush Live