My blog has moved!

You should be automatically redirected in 6 seconds. If not, visit
http://madamab.wordpress.com
and update your bookmarks.

Saturday, December 29, 2007

I'm Still In Mourning about Benazir Bhutto, But...

I am gratified that more progressives are catching on to what Barack Obama is really advocating with his "new kind of politics." Yes, he does constantly disrespect progressives. Yes, he is attacking Hillary and Edwards from the right, not the left. Yes, he is "reaching out" to people who could not care less what he does or thinks, and who would cut off their own hands before helping him in any way. Yes, he will not be the one to explain to the public how the conservato-fascists are wrong and the progressivo-liberals are right; he will not be the one to drag America back into the light; he will not be the new FDR we need in these horrible times.

Thank you, Paul Krugman, who has brought the danger of this rhetoric into sharp focus.

[via Avedon at Atrios' place]

Thursday, December 27, 2007

Terrible News.

Musharraf finally got her.

RAWALPINDI, Pakistan - Pakistan opposition leader Benazir Bhutto was assassinated Thursday in a suicide attack that also killed at least 20 others at the end of a campaign rally, aides said.

"The surgeons confirmed that she has been martyred," Bhutto's lawyer Babar Awan said.
So much for the only leader who could challenge Musharraf's power in Pakistan.

It seems the United States is always willing to support the most extreme, the most brutal dictators in the Middle East, as long as they are willing to at least give the appearance of being in accord with our interests. I thought that Musharraf had clearly stepped over the line when he agreed to shelter Osama bin Laden; then he declared a state of emergency and went after the press and other influential dissenters, but we still kept giving him billions of dollars to support our "war on terror." What does Musharraf have to do to fall out of favor with the Bush Administration?

Perhaps the outright assassination of his rival will at least keep us from subsidizing him further, but I highly doubt it. We're too afraid of the Islamofascists who might replace him, you know. A secular dictator is always better than a religious one, right?

Except when it's Saddam Hussein, apparently.

Saturday, December 22, 2007

Twas the Friday Before Christmas...

and all through the city
the Atriots came, to gather. So witty
and fun (with Simels' beret!) was it all,
I'm so glad I finally answered the call!

Happy Holidays to everyone, whatever you're doing! We're off to visit our relatives in Maryland/Virginia.

Friday, December 21, 2007

Impeach!

Enough about the Presnitial candidates already! Congressman Wexler (D-FL), who is on the Judiciary Committee, wants hearings on the languishing Cheney Impeachment Resolution. Do you?

If so, show your support and sign his petition. He's gotten more than 121,000 already.

Elsewhere on the site, Mr. Wexler explains why starting the hearings would strengthen both the Constitution and the Democratic agenda.

After the Democratic Party regained control of Congress, many – myself included – thought that it might be possible to meet President Bush half-way on the large issues facing our nation. Unfortunately, Bush has been nothing more than an ideological obstacle. He has vetoed stem cell research. He has vetoed efforts to bring our troops home from Iraq. He vetoed children's health care. So, the idea that we are somehow inhibiting Congress from passing our agenda by holding impeachment hearings – unfortunately – is a false argument.

Instead, I believe that we can both live up to our Constitutional obligation by holding hearings and pass a Democratic agenda. If President Bush perceives that the Democratic Congress is weak and unwilling to aggressively push our agenda – he will continue to veto legislation, such as children's health care – that is supported by a majority of Americans. The only way to move a progressive Democratic agenda is by acting through strength and following through on our core principles. A Congress willing to stand up to the abuses of the Bush Administration through impeachment hearings will demonstrate a strength of will that will more likely convince Bush to accommodate on issues such as Iraq, health care, and energy and environmental issues.


The success of our activism on the FISA bill shows that if enough of us speak out, we will prevail. Let's keep the momentum going!

Thursday, December 20, 2007

Paul Krugman Agrees With Me, Part Deux!

Wow. I am really flattered that The Krug has been reading my blog and taking it to heart!

Okay, now that I'm down from the clouds of FantasyLand, I'd really like to highlight the excellent interview Mr. Krugman gave to TPM's Election Central on his growing feud with Barack Obama. Here are some key quotes that made me yell "Thank you!" at my monitor. (Yes, I'm working at home right now. And no, the monitor doesn't talk back. Onward.)

EC: But should his conciliatory tone really be the basis to this extent of our evaluation of him? Some, including Matthew Yglesias, have argued that this focus on Obama's conciliatory rhetoric obscures the fact that Obama would still more likely prove a genuinely progressive president than Hillary would be.

PK: What evidence is there that she would be especially bad for the progressive movement? For what it's worth, Hillary's actual policy proposals are more aggressive than Obama's.
You mean, someone's actually reading her policy proposals and comparing them to Obama's? What is this, fact-based journamalism or something?

EC: What about on foreign policy? You could argue that Hillary is less willing to challenge old rhetorical frames on foreign policy, and that with her rhetoric and stuff like her Kyl-Lieberman vote, she's ceding turf at the outset on foreign policy the same way Obama is on health care.

PK: I guess I've been going on the view that no Democrat is not going to end this war, and no Democrat is going to start another war. I have not felt that foreign policy is the defining issue in the race to the nomination. Whether we're going to get universal health care is much more of a question.

This one is more of a mixed bag for me. I think that all of the "top three" Democrats are indistinguishable on foreign policy. Just because Obama spoke out against the invasion of Iraq before he was in the Senate does not mean that he would have done so while in the Senate. After all, he voted "present" 130 times as a State Senator - and as for the Kyl-Lieberman vote, he was not even there! Not exactly a courageous stance, now, is it? As for John Edwards, like Hillary, he also voted for the AUMF, and is even more aggressive in his anti-Iran rhetoric than Senator Clinton.

Given all of that, I hope Krugman is right and that all the Democrats would bring our troops home from Iraqnam and Afghanistan. Certainly the American people - and Congress - will be pushing for that result; after all, if the Republics did not have filibuster and veto power, the war would be over by now.

Now for the piece de resistance:

EC: But surely there's something to the argument that the skills to build coalitions, to win over moderates on the other side, aren't without any importance. Should we really take tone and rhetorical skills out of the equation entirely?

PK: No, but there aren't any moderates on the other side. And as far as sounding moderate goes, the reality is that if the Democrats nominated Joe Lieberman, a month into the general election Republicans would be portraying him as Josef Stalin. Obama's actually been positioning himself to the right of both Clinton and Edwards on domestic policy and has been attacking them from the right. [emphasis added]

The Democratic nominee is still going to be running on a platform that is substantially to the left of how Bill Clinton governed, and the Republican is going to nominate someone to the right of Attila the Hun. You want the Dem who's going to make that difference clear and not say things that will be used by Republicans to say, "Well, even their candidate says..."

And after the election, if you come in after having opposed mandates and having said Social Security is in a crisis, then you're going to have some problems fending off Republican attacks on health care and The Washington Post's demands that you make Social Security a top priority. Mostly it's a question of what happens after the election.
Damn, freaking, 100% right, and points I've made on this blog many times.

I am absolutely astonished that anyone sees Obama as some sort of liberal standard-bearer or agent for change, but in case anyone disagrees with Paul Krugman (and me of course!), check out the latest news: Apparently Obama would have no problem naming specific Republicans to be in his cabinet. (To be fair, John Edwards "the populist" made a more general remark about doing the same thing.) And Hillary, who many feel is the most centrist and corporate of the top three? Why lookee there - so far, no promises to include Republics in HER cabinet. Apparently, experience DOES count for something!

Need I say more?

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Why Joe Lieberman is Wrong, Wrong, Wrong

While the rest of the pack talks and panders and bickers and poses, Chris Dodd takes the time to step away from the Iowa circus and actually work for the good of the people. And who is he working against? George W. Bush and Harry Reid. Now that, Mr. Lieberman, is non-partisan. Something for Connecticut to be proud of.

But that's the trouble with Joe Lieberman, and by extension, with the Beltway handwringers who worship him. Joe doesn't want non-partisanship; he wants bi-partisanship.

While I was watching the Dodd filibuster with other blogging types at First Draft, I made the remark that "bi-partisanship is nothing to be proud of - it's like being half a criminal." I do believe that all remaining elected Republico-Fascists are part of a criminal enterprise, but there's something else there that might be worth exploring.

Here's the thing. The way the Washington "centrists" use the word "bi-partisan," it only means one thing: Move away from American ideals and the rule of law, and towards a right-wing extremist view that less than 25% of Americans agree with. They never, ever expect the Republics to move towards the Democratic side, do they? Can you imagine Joe Klein or David Broder weeping and wailing that the Republics are not moving far enough to the left to accommodate the Democrats? It is to laugh, and cry.

True bi-partisanship - both parties working together for the betterment of America and its people - would be a wonderful thing. Unfortunately for America, the Republic Party is currently taking its pages from the Nazi playbook. They are spying on us; rendering and torturing us; disappearing us; creating a media of pro-Establishment propagandists; empowering the Executive beyond all reasonable interpretation of the law; stealing our elections; invading countries on false premises to steal their resources/gain power in the region; and on and on. To expect the Republics to work towards the good of America at this point, as the Liebermans of the world appear to do, is to be either completely partisan, or completely paid off (not necessarily mutually exclusive, of course).

Since bi-partisanship is not possible at this point, what we should be striving for - and what I believe we really want - is NON-partisanship. There are certain American goals that, in a sane world, should be beyond political affiliation. They are outlined in the Preamble to the Constitution, which goes like this:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Hmm. Unity. Justice. Peace. Security. Caring about the American people. Freedom.

Sounds pretty non-partisan to me.

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

You Can All Say You Knew Me When.

Okay, it's probably not such a big deal to you big A-listers out there, but guess whose post about Oprah-Obama was excerpted in the Chicago Tribune today?

I am way too excited about this, but hey! We zzzz-list bloggistas take our media attention where we can.

Mr. Dodd Goes to Washington, Prevails in FISA Fight

Thank you, Senator Dodd! No retroactive immunity will be granted to the telecom companies for their warrantless wiretapping of American citizens - the bill has been shelved until January.

Here is an excellent clip from Countdown with Keith Olbermann discussing the exciting events of yesterday. Not only is Senator Dodd on the clip, but Ted Kennedy and SWOON! Sam Seder make appearances.

I caught some of the debate on Cspan2 over at First Draft. Senator Dodd's speeches were brilliant, passionate and morally clear, and when a Republic came on to discuss terra terra terra 9/11 9/11, it was abundantly obvious what mental midgets they were by comparison.

It was a good day for democracy. May there be many more.

Monday, December 17, 2007

I Must Be Right About Barack Obama...

Paul Krugman agrees with me.

I admit, he didn't use the words "ICK factor," and he wasn't talking about Oprah. This is more along the lines of Obama's kumbaya attitude, and how he would drive a progressive agenda using that approach. Take it away, Mr. Krugman!

O.K., more seriously, it’s actually Mr. Obama who’s being unrealistic here, believing that the insurance and drug industries — which are, in large part, the cause of our health care problems — will be willing to play a constructive role in health reform. The fact is that there’s no way to reduce the gross wastefulness of our health system without also reducing the profits of the industries that generate the waste.

As a result, drug and insurance companies — backed by the conservative movement as a whole — will be implacably opposed to any significant reforms. And what would Mr. Obama do then? “I’ll get on television and say Harry and Louise are lying,” he says. I’m sure the lobbyists are terrified.

As health care goes, so goes the rest of the progressive agenda. Anyone who thinks that the next president can achieve real change without bitter confrontation is living in a fantasy world. [emphasis added]

Which brings me to a big worry about Mr. Obama: in an important sense, he has in effect become the anti-change candidate.
Bingo! That is exactly the problem with Senator Obama's "new kind of politics." The corporations have a stranglehold on our government, Barack, and they're not giving it up for the sake of your smile, as charming as it is.

Although Edwards is not my favorite candidate, he has been the one (among the Big Three tied in Iowa) that has consistently fought the Man throughout his career. As a lawyer, he was extremely successful representing "little guy" clients that had been harmed by corporate negligence or malfeasance.

If the nominee is going to be one of the Big Three, at least let it be Edwards or Hillary, who both have demonstrated their tenacity in the face of unflagging enmity from right wing/conservative interests. I fear that Obama has too much right-wing sympathy - and not enough down-and-dirty fight - to effect real change in this country.

And I must be right, because Paul Krugman feels the same way.

FISA Law Debate Begins Today...

The Democrats in the Senate feel confident that they can gain the 60 votes needed to beat the Fascist filibuster against debating the temporary FISA law passed last summer at the last minute. But there are more hurdles to jump after that.

Senator Chris Dodd has vowed to filibuster any bill that contains immunity for telecom companies that illegally spied on Americans for the Bushies. (Note: Senator Dodd's website has many links and updates on today's action, including the ability to reward him for good behavior.) In addition, there are several amendments that may be considered, and even if an acceptable version can be passed, the House bill must be reconciled with the Senate bill.

I don't believe the telecom companies should be given retroactive immunity for their data mining of Americans. Although it is unclear what exactly they did, since the White House is withholding that information as per usual, it seems obvious that they wouldn't be asking for immunity if they didn't do something illegal. It's like when your child won't tell you what he did to the living room walls unless you first promise that he won't get punished. It's a sucker deal if I've ever heard one.

I also don't believe that the FISA law needed any more "fixing," except to make it more restrictive than it has been. If nothing can be agreed upon by both houses of Congress, the old FISA law will be reinstated. Since the Fascists feel that the more lying and spying Bush does, the "safer" we all are, the failure of the new legislation might be the best outcome for all of us.

Saturday, December 15, 2007

Like All Vampires...

New York's Nosferatu finds sunlight is lethal.

Thanks to some of Giuliani's scandals beginning to surface in the press, and particularly Tim Russert's devastating interview on "Meet the Press" last Sunday, Rudy's star is falling. Baptist Minister and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (or Hackabee, as I call him), who I have thought for a long time is the only true choice for the right-wing evangelicals that make up the largest voting bloc in the primaries, is now leading in Florida.

As many thought, this idea that Rudy could ignore the "early" states where Romney and Hack were leading and begin his sweeping, inevitable victory from the Sunshine State, would never fly.

Numbers like this have to really hurt Rudy Giuliani's strategy, as Florida has been one of the few January contests where he was polling well recently. In addition, it says a lot about Huckabee's fellow Southern candidate, Fred Thompson — he used to lead or come in a close second here, but is now down to 9%.
For a long time, the press has completely ignored the fact that despite his strong national poll numbers, Rudy simply is not a good fit for today's Republic party. Granted, his authoritarianism is attractive to people who still support Bush, and certainly he is a foreign policy neocon like Cheney who would love to bomb something just to watch it die. But clearly, he fails the religious test. Giuliani is on the wrong side of the issues where the evangelicals are concerned; Gays, God and Guns are where he is the most liberal. Ditto for Mitt Romney, who was the governor of liberal Taxachussetts, tortured his dog, and is more of a flip-flopper than a dolphin at Sea World on the triple G's.

Hackabee has genuine conservative credentials. He is a True Believer from the evangelical point of view, and always has been "right" on Gays, God and Guns. He also appears to care about ordinary people, which the modern GOP has completely stopped even pretending to do - decrying "No Child Left Behind" and advocating for adding the arts back into curricula, for example. When it comes to the war, he is an advocate for "The Surge" and staying in Iraq until the Iraqis and their neighbors in the region "step up." Hackabee's scandals, although they too are starting to come to light, won't matter. They are insignificant compared to the fact that he is The One.

Personally, I have never thought that Giuliani would survive the Republic primaries. The only person who can do that has to fully represent the 25% of Americans who still believe in George Bush. And that means that when the Republic nominee is selected, 75% of Americans will not want to vote for him.

If that person is in fact Hackabee, it's going to be a Democratic tsunami in 2008. I cannot wait for this country to see what it will be like to have Democrats fully in charge of all three branches again. I hope we will finally realize that Fascism has no place in America, and we can never again let the Fascists take away the values of truth, justice, liberty and peace that our Founding Fathers put in our beloved Constitution.

Thursday, December 13, 2007

Obama + Oprah = Ick

It's taken me a while to figure out why I am uncomfortable with the fact that Barack Obama has taken Oprah Winfrey with him on the campaign trail. But now, I think I know. It's called the "ICK" factor.

Now, I have nothing against the phenomenon that is Oprah. In fact, I respect and admire her for overcoming the instutional racism and gender prejudice that exists in America - and in such a spectacular manner! I think she is also a very talented actress, which she demonstrated beyond question in the movie "The Color Purple." Given all these accomplishments, if La Winfrey recommends a book, I might even consider buying it! (In fact, some books I've already read and enjoyed have made it to her list.)

But ICK! Barack Obama is not a product. He is not a book, a movie or a Broadway show. He is a candidate for president, and should be evaluated on the basis of his accomplishments, not on the basis of Oprah Winfrey's. And the thought that millions of Winfrey fans might vote for Obama simply because she says so, has a very creepy aspect of groupthink to it.

And ICK! Look who Obama chooses to promote his message on the campaign trail. The choice of an anti-gay gospel singer happy to be "cured" of his homosexuality was bad enough; but the fact that Obama picked a TeeVee personality like Oprah Winfrey to campaign with him shows me that he thinks of himself as a product, perhaps a "rock star" as he is so often called, but not as a serious candidate with serious ideas. Aren't we the people a little over electing preening narcissists with vague "kumbaya" messages ("compassionate conservative," anyone?) without first screening them through our internal radar?

Oh, yes, ICK! Obama is a narcissist of the first order. His whole campaign is about how wonderful HE is, not how wonderful his ideas are. His book was called "The Audacity of Hope," for Jeebus' sake! Every human being on the planet hopes for something, but because the Great Obama, Uniter of Us All, does something absolutely unremarkable, it's now "audacious." Could he love himself any more? (And incidentally, could Oprah love herself any more?)

I have read from many different sources that people elect their national leaders based on feelings and instincts, and not on the issues. Well, my gut went ICK! as soon as I saw George W. Bush and his lunatic thousand-yard-stare, and it goes ICK! everytime I see Barack Obama. I hope that America doesn't fall for Obama's con game, because everything he does and says proves he is not ready to be President in 2008.

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Which War Crime Is Worse?

I feel like Keith Olbermann as I ponder which BushCheney war crime will be counted by history as the Worst! War Crime! In the Worrrrrrrrlllllld!

Is it the torturing and rendering of suspected terrorists, which is against U.S. and International Law?

Is it the propagandizing of the citizenry and elected representatives thereof in support of dragging us into wars for empire and diminishing natural resources? (Note: This one is a three-fer: Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran all fall into this category.)

Is it the treasonous outing of a CIA agent who was working to protect America from nuclear proliferation in Iran and elsewhere?

We have smoking gun evidence of all these crimes, some of them even being admitted by their various perpetrators. Yet although investigations are taking place, and many quite effectively, so far the masterminds behind them - Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld, George Bush - have remained free to continue to torture, maim and kill as many as they wish in the name of "national security." Thank goodness 25% of cowardly, worthless, un-American Americans feel safer - that's certainly worth allowing war criminals to go unpunished!

Impeach. Indict. Incarcerate.

Sunday, December 9, 2007

On My Worst Day...

at least I am not, nor will I ever be, this woman.

Let's read some of the priceless prose of Ms. Robin Givhan, shall we?

I believe she was trying to begin her article in media res, but to me, she is simply maundering - in a fashion even Andy Rooney would find excessive.

The mind, so easily distracted by things mauve and lemon yellow, strays from more pressing concerns to ponder the sartorial: How many pantsuits does Hillary Clinton have in her closet? And does she ever wear them in the same combination more than once?
I would comment on this, but I just saw some bright shiny colors....lalalalalalala....

Whew, I'm back! Here's some more of Ms. Givhan's unique insight into Senator Clinton's sartorial strategy:

The pantsuit is Clinton's uniform. Hers is a mix-and-match world, a grown-up land of Garanimals: black pants with gray jacket, tan jacket with black pants, tan jacket with tan pants. There are a host of reasons to explain Clinton's attachment to pantsuits. They are comfortable. They can be flattering, although not when the jacket hem aligns with the widest part of the hips (hypothetically speaking, of course). Does she even have hips?
Now that is some fantastic stuff. First, the writer infantilizes the Senator by saying she wears Garanimals. And in drab colors, yet - she's so unwomanly, she can't even match tan and tan! (Never mind that Ms. Givhan was just fulminating about the Senator's overly bright colors three sentences before.) The piece de resistance is the last two sentences, though. Her pantsuits are cut unflatteringly over Hillary's hips, which apparently she doesn't have! Dizzyingly brilliant!

Could it get better/worse? Why yes. Yes it could.

And because Clinton seems to prefer crossing her legs at the ankle -- in the way girls were taught when girls were still sent to finishing school -- there is less likelihood of any embarrassing straight-to-YouTube video.
Let's not even talk about the fact that these three paragraphs don't seem to be linked, although they follow each other directly in the "article." Help me out with what she is trying to say. Is there something wrong with making sure that your crotch is not plastered all over YouTube? I mean, not that Hillary has one anyone would want to look at, since she's hardly even a woman, and besides which, she's fricking old as the hills, mmmmmkay? Ewwwwwww, how can Bill sleep with a Garanimal-wearing, pants-loving, colorblind, hipless, ancient crone like Hillary?

I really don't know how a person like this looks at herself in the mirror. Maybe she's got one that tells her she's the fairest in the land, like in "Snow White." But to me, she's a misogynistic, sad, jealous woman who would give anything to be in Hillary's sensible shoes.

Friday, December 7, 2007

57 Times.

That's the number of occasions upon which the Fascists in the Senate have used the filibuster.

Fifty.

Seven.

Times.

The Fascists have decided upon a wonderful strategery. They know they were the worst Congress evah. They know they did nothing for six years. By all rights, 2008 should see great Democratic gains in both the House and the Senate and make 2006 look like a 50-50 election.

But not so fast! They also know that the traditional media can be counted on to make them look better, no matter what they do. So their game plan is: Filibuster EVERYTHING. Filibustering makes it impossible for the Democrats to do anything, since it is now clear that not enough Fascists are going to vote with them to get cloture (60 votes).

Once they have paralyzed the Congress, they can then point at the Democrats and say, "See? They suck just as badly as we did! There's no difference between the parties! Stay awaaaaaaaay from the polls! Booga booga booga terra support the troops!"

Up until very recently, the Democrats have not been complaining about Fascist obstructionism, which I believe was a poor choice from a political point of view. Most likely, they felt that it would make them look weak to say that they were being blocked by the opposition party. But today, I heard Senator Bernie Sanders say the words "obstructionism" and "oligarchy" with reference to the Republics. Bravo, Senator!

More like this, please. Americans need to know the source of the gridlock in Washington, and the press isn't telling us. Speak out, Congressional Democrats, and don't be shy. We need to hear your voices.

Thursday, December 6, 2007

Dear Nancy, Please Set the Table.



Ah feel yer pain, Madame Speaker. I know that you're worried that you can't stop the war while impeaching Bush. I know you think that the Democrats won't win in 2008 if you impeach him. I know you may have made a deal of some sort, or perhaps you know the effort will fail in the Senate and you don't want to lose.

But George Bush has been caught out, right there on the TeeVee. He has been lying, fearmongering and warmongering for 4 months about Iran and its "nucular" weapons program, which we now know they had discontinued FOUR YEARS AGO. Come on, Nancy, I'll give Bush a blow job myself if that'll get things going! (Of course, it may take me a while to locate the Presidential pee-pee. I have always maintained that he is anatomically incorrect, like a Ken doll. But I would consider it a small sacrifice for my country.)

And think about it: Weren't we all stunned at the Deciderer's rudeness when he refused to spend more than an hour at the recent Middle East peace conference in Annapolis? He must have been afraid that his secret knowledge about the lack of threat coming from Iran would slip out and *gasp* make peace more likely. We all know that the Rapture can't come that way, dammit!

So come on, Speaker Pelosi. Set the table. America is starving for it.

Wednesday, December 5, 2007

Horse Races

In the past couple of days, I have heard two separate TeeVee pundits explain the narrowing of the Republican and Democratic primary races thusly:

"One reason is that, you know, Americans want a horse race."

Could these Washington bubbleheads be any more repugnant?

Listen, you fools, you privileged, smug, sociopathic pieces of shit. Politics is not a sport, despite all the lovely useful metaphors you sling around to make us think we are rooting for our "team." It is the deadly, World War III, nucularly-serious business of deciding who we want to lead our country. And we know now, oh, we know down in the crevices of our souls that IT FUCKING MATTERS WHO'S PRESIDENT. If Al Gore had been allowed to become President in 2001, is there a human being (and no, Bush supporters do not count as such any more) who actually thinks that America in 2007 would be the same as it is now?

No, Chris Cillizza, and A.B. Stoddard, and all you other empty-hearted "experts," we out here in The Real World do not want a horse race. We are not betting on the results at the fucking OTB. We are fighting for the soul of our country, for the return of sanity and the rule of law, for peace, truth, justice and the American Way. We are genuinely divided, as we should be, over who will bring us back to those ideals we hold so dear.

What a sad commentary on our media; people who don't even understand these basic truths about politics are the ones being hired to Explain It All...

Tuesday, December 4, 2007

Oy!

As my friend Ray says, Chappy Chanukkah!!!

Started the new Borg today - no access to the Internets. I did see last night, however, that Huckabee is now ahead of Romney and Rudy NineEleven in Iowa, although at least with Romney it's still within the margin of error. The "top three" Dems all seem to be deadlocked, with Obama now in the lead.

I'm still predicting Huckabee v. Edwards in '08. Oh, how I wish we had public financing of elections and a two-month primary, like in Old Yurp...

Sunday, December 2, 2007

Madamab So Sad.

We did not move yesterday. Our apartment did not sell yet despite the contract being signed 10/9/07. It looks like we will be living out of boxes for, at best, another month, and if our buyer is not approved by the Co-op Board, it could be months.

funny pictures

moar funny pictures

At least there's pretty snow on the ground...

Thursday, November 29, 2007

The Myth of The "Good" Republican

It seems like a pertinent question these days: Are there any "good" Republicans left? People who put the interests of their country over the interests of their party? People like the Republicans who voted to impeach Richard Nixon, for example? People who I would not lovingly refer to as either "Republics" or "Fascists?"

In my opinion, if such a creature exists in 2007, he or she has met the following criteria:

1) Fired by the Bush Administration;
2) Changed parties to either Independent or Democratic; and/or
3) Made public statements condemning the Deciderer as the Worst. President. Ever.

There are a few people I can think of that meet these criteria - James Comey, formerly of the Justice Department, who has testified in Congress to the misdeeds of Alberto Gonzales, comes to mind - but for the most part, my answer to this question is no.

In my fantasy world, anyone who is currently both a Republican and a supporter of George W. Bush would be banned from political participation. Perhaps we could offer them some sort of rehab; something to awaken their empathy, like having their spouse waterboarded, or rendering them to Syria for months of torture, or sending them to Iraq or Afghanistan to suffer loss of life or limb...but until they show they are actual thinking and feeling members of the human race, no politics for them!

Unfortunately for moi, no one has elected me Queen of the Universe yet. So for now, we must deal with the fact that many Americans still believe that there are Good Republicans out there, one of whom is the bloody but unbowed Colin Powell.

On the campaign trail, Senator Hillary Clinton knew her audience when she said this:

"I have said I won't even wait until I'm inaugurated, but as soon as I'm elected I'm going to be asking distinguished Americans of both parties -- people like Colin Powell, for example -- and others who can represent our country well, including someone I know very well," Clinton told the predominantly black audience after receiving the endorsement of dozens of South Carolina ministers.

Contacted by ABC News' Teddy Davis, Gen. Colin Powell was tight-lipped Tuesday when asked if he is open to Clinton's invitation.

"I have not seen what she has said. I don't know the context of it," Powell told ABC News. "I have admiration for Mrs. Clinton but I have no comment."
As usual, Senator Clinton is looking ahead to the general election. She knows that, despite the fact that Republics have almost completely destroyed America by being loyal only to their party, Americans still want to believe that our existing two parties can get along and accomplish great things together. Hence, the great success of Barack Obama's campaign, based on the "Can't we all just get along?" concept.

As Brian Griffin said on the show Family Guy, "Undecided voters are the stupidest people on the planet." I would change that to "the most uninformed." But alas, our Fourth Estate no longer informs the people. We have "news" networks and talk radio personalities that exist for the sole purpose of promoting right-wing propaganda. Even our most trusted newspapers and magazines print blatantly erroneous information that benefits Republics. Is it any wonder, then, that the myth of the Good Republican refuses to die?

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Predicted Nervous Breakdown Occurring on Schedule.

May I just say that attempting to sell one's place and buy someone else's place at the same time is not conducive to one's mental or emotional health? Especially, hypothetically speaking of course, when the attorneys and brokers one is dealing with are incompetent and/or dishonest?

Timing is everything in real estate, and ours just got screwed up beyond belief. Now, both our sale and our purchase are in jeopardy and our moving date is postponed or canceled.

I know that in the grand scheme of things, it's probably somehow for the best, but in the meantime, I've laid in a good supply of dark chocolate...

Monday, November 26, 2007

Well, That Was Fast.

Wonder why Trent Lott is resigning? Could it be that he needs to Spend More Time with His Family (TM)?

Heavens, no! It's because he wants to make sure he can take advantage of that sweet, sweet Wingnut Welfare.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, intends to resign by the end of the year and join the private sector, sources tell CNN.

Lott is expected to make the announcement Monday in Pascagoula, Mississippi.

A senior Republican source close to Lott said one reason for the decision is the new lobbying restrictions on former lawmakers.

A law kicks in on January 1 that forbids lawmakers from lobbying for two years after leaving office. Those who leave by the end of 2007 are covered by the previous law, which demands a wait of only one year.

Lott, the Republican whip, was elected last year to a fourth term in the Senate. His term lasts until 2012.
The Fascists are not even trying to hide what they're all about any more. If you can't benefit from Conservative Cronyism, why bother to be in the government?

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Hunger in the Land of Plenty

In 2006, 35.5 million people went hungry in America. Within that group of people, 11.1 million have what our euphemism-laden society calls "low food security," which means that they literally do not know where their next meal is coming from. Appallingly, many of these suffering Americans are employed, but their jobs pay too little to support them and their families.

It always makes me angry when I hear people in the progressive-liberal community bemoaning the stupidity and passivity of Americans. I wonder how active and informed we would be if we were always worried about their next meal; if we didn't have access to the Internet; or if we didn't have leisure time because we were so "uniquely American" that we had to work three jobs?

According to Maslow's hierarchy of human needs, without the basics of food, clothing and housing, none of us would be able to focus on anything but subsistence. As we all prepare for the institutionalized gorging that is Thanksgiving, perhaps we should spare a moment to think about the more than 10 percent of our country who won't have enough to eat at all.

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Dude, Where's My Impeachment?

It's been two weeks since, in a dramatic and bizarre session of the House of Representatives, Dennis Kucinich's resolution to impeach Dick Cheney was passed and proceeded to the Judiciary Committee.

But I don't have to mention this. I mean, what with the huge media frenzy and all, you must be sick of hearing about it!

Oh, wait. Sorry. I was thinking of when a Democrat is impeached for lying about a blow job. My bad!

It is absolutely amazing to me, although unfortunately not surprising, that the traditional media is still this blatant about protecting the Bush Administration from the consequences of its actions.

Could there be a more impeachable vice president than Dick Cheney, after all? The guy's approval rating is 9%. He shot his friend in the face while drunk. He held secret energy meetings wherein he planned the invasion of Iraq for its oil, then planned to divide that oil among his buddies. He was in charge of the antiterrorism task force before 9/11 and didn't hold ONE MEETING. He leaked the name of a covert CIA operative to the media for political purposes, endangering both her and her colleagues. And let's not forget that the Vice President is a one-man Constitutional wrecking ball!

Yet the silence of my TeeVee is deafening. Not even Keith Olbermann, the most outspoken and eloquent broadcaster on the crimes of the Bush Administration, is permitted to speak of impeachment. I'm sure he is biting his tongue nightly, especially when having to do an entire segment on the vitally important vicissitudes of..."American Idol."

A majority of Americans support the impeachment of Cheney and, to a lesser degree, George Bush. But then, it's been a very long time since the traditional news media reflected the views of ordinary Americans; they're too busy trying to please their corporate masters. What they don't understand is, if no one watches, no one buys...

Monday, November 19, 2007

Giuliani Scares Me - And I'm Not the Only One

My "I Told You So" alert is at RED, baby!

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Republican Rudy Giuliani vows to be tough on terror, chooses advisers who want to bomb Iran and doesn't think pretending to drown prisoners is torture.

Add to those views a reputation for being combative, and Giuliani often evokes the word "scary" from opponents who find the tough-guy image that served him so well after the September 11 attacks now a cause for concern as he seeks the U.S. presidency.

Type the word "scary" and names of Republican candidates for president into a leading database of articles. The name of the former New York mayor will get the most hits.

"He is a scary guy," said Jerome Hauer, who ran the city's Office of Emergency Management for Giuliani. "He was probably one of the more divisive mayors the city has ever seen.

"People in this country should be very frightened of Rudy because he is not going to bring the country together," Hauer added. "Who knows who he'd pick wars with?"

Even the evangelicals understand that Giuliani is terrifying; that's why he's behind Huckabee in Iowa and New Hampshire.

I can't wait to see this Fascist humiliated. He is a truly vicious and unprincipled man, and would be even worse than Bush when it comes to cronyism and warmongering.

I really think the wingnuts are going to pick Huckabee. Jeebus make it so!

Sunday, November 18, 2007

Moving

So, we're moving on December 1st and we still don't have a contract with the sellers of the place we're buying.

Posting may be light while I have a nervous breakdown....

Friday, November 16, 2007

Selfish

I was rather wordy yesterday, so here's a short one: To take back our liberal brand and make it positive again, why don't we just start pounding the meme that conservatives are selfish?

Not only is that assertion true to the nth degree, but doesn't every American know that being selfish is wrong?

Just a thought.

Thursday, November 15, 2007

Why Chris Dodd is Getting My Primary Vote

I just received this letter from Senator Dodd's campaign [excerpted for brevity]:

As they say ... Breaking News from the Senate.

Forgive me if some of this is in the weeds, I'll try and make the parliamentary process as painless as possible.

1. Within the last hour, the Senate Judiciary Committee just reported out a FISA bill that DOES NOT include retroactive immunity for the telecom companies that helped the Bush Administration spy on Americans.
2. This means the Judiciary bill moves to the full Senate WITHOUT the dangerous language included.
3. Retroactive immunity will, however, surely be introduced as an amendment to the FISA bill.
4. If needed Senator Dodd will filibuster any amendment seeking to add retroactive immunity to the underlying bill. By filibustering, he will force the opposition to find 60 votes to pass the provision.

It will be a lot more difficult for those who would enable the erosion of our Constitution to find the 60 votes necessary to stop immunity on its own than it would be for us to find the 40 needed to sustain a filibuster of the bill as a whole if it included immunity.

Today is a great victory for all of us -- and another example of Chris Dodd's leadership.

If it wasn't for our efforts, together, retroactive immunity would be well on its way to sailing through the Senate ... largely unnoticed.
There is nothing more important to me than restoring the Constitution. Chris Dodd is the one who will do it.

Should you be so inclined....

Calling Things Aright

Inspired by both Southern Beale's comment on my previous post and Dirk Gently's post yesterday, I'd like to say a few words about framing.

The Republics are fantabulous at framing. One reason is that they are authoritarians, and are thus much more given to groupthink than we rebellious liberal-progressives are. Another is that they still have the biggest microphone in the country. They own most of talk radio, several influential newspapers and this country's Pravda, Fox "News" Channel. But we cannot discount the fact that our elected representatives do not seem to have a clue, in this day and age, as to how to sell their ideas...with which 70%-90% of Americans are in total agreement. Mon dieu!

Being a girl who has some marketing background, I'd love to give our team a little advice. Here goes:

1) Do not play the other team's game. In this case, do not give their words power by leaving them unchallenged.

Case in point: We should not call our economic system the "free market," since the last thing these criminals want is free and fair competition (which might keep them from getting billion-dollar no-bid contracts.) We shouldn't call it privatization, since the word "private" has positive connotations to many Americans. We should call it by its true name: Cronyism. Doesn't that just encapsulate the true nature of the Bushies, especially since yesterday's discovery that the Inspector General who refused to investigate Blackwater has a brother on Blackwater's Advisory Board?

2) Figure out how to phrase your ideas so they make sense to our infantilized populace.

Let's face it. We Murkins have been treated like children so often that we have become children. When Bush told us to go shopping after 9/11, what did we do? Did we scream "What the fuck are you talking about? What kind of soulless monster are you?" No - most of us said, "What a wise and wonderful man he is!" and went about our business.

Democrats keep thinking that intelligence, good ideas and being Not Republican will get them elected. Because of the extraordinary horribleness of today's Fascist party, that worked in 2006 and it will work in 2008. But what about when the new Democratic President and Congress get blamed for four years straight for the mess that Bush and his Cronies and Lackeys have left us? Seriously, Democrats, once you're in power, are you really not expecting the press to cream you day after day, night after night, just for having D's after your names? Where the hell have you been for the past 30 years?

What sells is emotion. What sells is simplicity. Give a little (taxes); get a lot (free education and health care for everyone). Stop the wars. Save the children. Save the earth. Support the troops. Stop Cronyism. Protect our economy. Protect our food. People power. Trickle-up economics. Jeebus fuck, is it that hard?!

If the Democrats don't learn this lesson, and soon, they will risk the rebirth of the Fascists in 2012. And this time, they won't go away without taking us all the way down the road to the Fourth Reich.

Government of Terror

I really think that the main area of disagreement between libertario-conservo-Fascists and normal Americans is this: What is the job of the government?

Personally, I think it is to invest our money to the betterment of society. So how's that working out for us after seven endless years of BushCheney? Is society better when 49 million people don't have health insurance? Is society better when our bridges and roads and levees are crumbling? Is society better when our money buys less and less? Is society better when housing and education are not affordable? Is society better when our jobs are outsourced to India and China? Is society better when our leaders steal elections and refuse to obey our laws and Constitution? Is society better when our brave, patriotic young people are killed, maimed and mentally destroyed in endless wars over limited resources?

A sane person would say no. A sane person would say that Bush and his cronies are destroying everything good and right about America. But clearly, libertario-conservo-Fascists are not sane. They have been driven mad by terror, the very feeling Bush and his fellow fearmongers promise they will protect us against with their strong daddy-ness.

Take a look at this ad by Republic candidate Tom Tancredo, and tell me, with a straight face, that these people have any intention of doing anything but scaring the shit out of their voters.

This is why I don't want to come to the table and reach out and sing Kumbaya with these people. Sorry, Senator Obama. We do not reach out to people who want to destroy us. We run over and over them with a truck until they are dead, politically speaking.

Had we done this with Nixon (and his minions, Cheney and Rumsfeld), America would be a much better country today.

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

Deals

When we progressives in Real-World-Land hear about something awful happening in DC-Land, like Judge Michael Mukasey's nomination and confirmation as Attorney General, we are perfectly within our rights to let our representatives know our feelings about that something. I did, and I don't regret it.

However, sometimes - all right, probably more than sometimes - we don't know the whole story behind why our representatives are doing those things they do. I do think that our government should be much more transparent and that these deals should be out in the open, but realistically, I don't when or if that's going to happen - it certainly won't while Bush and his thugs are in power. Given this story that broke yesterday, I think I may have an idea why my Senator, Chuck Schumer, recommended Judge Mukasey in the first place, and continued to support him in the face of mounting party and public disapproval.

The Justice Department has reopened a long-dormant inquiry into the government's warrantless wiretapping program, a major policy shift only days into the tenure of Attorney General Michael Mukasey.

The investigation by the department's Office of Professional Responsibility was shut down last year, after the investigators were denied security clearances. Gonzales told Congress that President Bush, not he, denied the clearances.

"We recently received the necessary security clearances and are now able to proceed with our investigation," H. Marshall Jarrett, counsel for the OPR, wrote to Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y. A copy of the letter, dated Tuesday, was obtained by The Associated Press.

Hinchey and other Democrats have long sought an investigation into the spying program to see if it complies with the law. Efforts to investigate the program have been rebuffed by the Bush administration.

"I am happily surprised," Hinchey said. "It now seems because we have a new attorney general the situation has changed. Maybe this attorney general understands that his obligation is not to be the private counsel to the president but the chief law enforcement officer for the entire country."

The Democratically-controlled Senate and House have long been stymied by AG Gonzales' refusal to enforce their subpoenas and ensure compliance with their requests for documents vital to continuing investigations.

Without the backing of the supposedly apolitical Justice Department, the Senate and House have been all bark and no bite. In my opinion, since Gonzales' forced resignation, the Democrats have been waiting to proceed on how best to deal with the Bush Administration's lawless behavior until they could get an AG in office who would actually, you know, enforce the law.

Perhaps - just perhaps - AG Mukasey will do just that.

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Absolutely. Fucking. Pathetic.

Oh. My. Guh. The media in this country is the biggest disgrace I've ever seen.

How in the bloody fuck is Rudy Giuliani still even in the race for President? Not only is he worse than George W. Bush temperamentally, intellectually and experientially, but he is clearly the most scandal-ridden front runner in modern (TeeVee) history. Can we just discuss how he married his second cousin? Or how he announced his divorce from Donna Hanover at a press conference? Or how he put the emergency center for New York IN THE WORLD TRADE CENTER and refused to fix the interdepartmental communications that were a problem in the previous bombing, thus being responsible for much of the death and destruction of 9/11? Or how many of his associates and BFF's are criminals?

You know what? That's not important. Let's obsess about how a couple of Hillary's aides suggested a couple of questions that related to the topics being discussed at the forum. Ooooh! Her campaign asked people if they would ask about global warming! THE HORROR!!!

But the media blackout on real Republican versus fake Democratic scandals doesn't stop there. One would think it would be difficult to mention the issue of planted questions without remembering the entire FAKE PRESS CONFERENCE WITH FAKE JOURNALISTS that FEMA staged! Or all the propaganda planted IN THE MAJOR MEDIA by the Bush Administration to support their No Child Left Behind initiative! Or the fact that Bush didn't even let anyone other than registered, fealty-swearing Fascists into his campaign speeches! Or that he planted a male hooker in the White House Press Corps to send him softball questions! We all know the blizzard of outrage and scandal all of this media manipulation by President Bush caused!

[cricket cricket cricket]

Absolutely. Fucking. Pathetic.

Monday, November 12, 2007

Verrrrrry Interesting.

Ordinarily I'm not a fan of Condoleezza Rice. In fact, I have been known to call her a "gap-toothed oil-drinking bitch." But I've heard very often that she is one of the voices advocating against bombing Iran, and it seems that yesterday, she made her views public.

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Sunday she does not believe a Senate resolution authorizes President Bush to take military action against Iran.

"There is nothing in this particular resolution that would suggest that from our point of view. And, clearly, the president has also made very clear that he's on a diplomatic path where Iran comes into focus," Rice said.

The Senate in late September voted 76-22 in favor of a resolution urging the State Department to designate Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization.

While the resolution, by Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., attracted overwhelming bipartisan support, a small group of Democrats said they feared labeling the state-sponsored organization a terrorist group could be interpreted as a congressional authorization of military force in Iran.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton was the only Senate Democrat running for president to support the measure. Her rivals have argued that Bush could use it to justify war with Iran. Clinton insists her vote would not support military strikes and instead was a vote for stepped-up diplomacy.

On Sunday, Rice echoed that view. She said Bush was focused on diplomatic options - not waging war.
Now, I'm not saying that I believe Condi Rice, or any of these lying Fascists. Jeebus forbid! There could be many nefarious motives behind this statement. Who knows - maybe the Bushies are trying to spike Senator Clinton's campaign by drawing parallels between what Hillary is saying and what Rice is saying about Iran.

What is interesting, however, is that Rice has definitively come out and said that the Kyl-Lieberman resolution does not authorize war against Iran. It will be difficult, in these days of ever-increasing opposition to the occupation of Iraq, to take such a statement back.

On Veterans' Day

This weekend, as I was watching the TeeVee, I was struck by how many happy shiny people are SO EXCITED about Veterans' Day. Why? Sales, baby! Nothing like Veterans' Day to bring out the bargains, right, Consumer - er, Citizen?

I wonder if this guy is looking forward to shopping at Macy's today?



Support the troops. Bring them home.

Friday, November 9, 2007

The Point of Barack Obama's Campaign

I have not said anything about the Democratic candidates in a while. I'm already tired of discussing the implications of every single word they say, and most of the "stories" about them are ludicrous. (Hillary didn't tip well? Barack didn't salute the flag? Hillary put a professional hit on CATS? Edwards got a haircut? Dennis' wife has a tongue-stud and he sees UFO's? PUH-lease.)

But I cannot keep silent on the bullshit coming out of Obama's campaign any more. I didn't say anything about his come-to-Jesus tour of the South, where he insisted on including an anti-gay gospel singer because we "need to reach out" to the homophobic community. I didn't say anything about his holier-than-thou crap in the latest debate, where he all but accused Senator Clinton of being a liar when she tried to outline a complex immigration issue in 30 seconds. But with his latest line of attack about Mrs. Clinton, can anyone doubt what his real message is?

WASHINGTON - Barack Obama sparked a generational fight Wednesday by trashing White House rival Hillary Clinton for being too old to unite America, saying she and others her age have fought the same tired fights for too long.

"I think there's no doubt that we represent the kind of change that Sen. Clinton can't deliver on, and part of it is generational," Obama, 46, said on Fox News. "Sen. Clinton and others, they've been fighting some of the same fights since the '60s, and it makes it very difficult for them to bring the country together to get things done."

Experts and opponents pounced, saying Obama's remarks could offend the most reliable voters, people older than 50 - especially in early-voting Iowa. "You are counting precisely on an older group of Democrats in Iowa," said Iowa State University's Steffen Schmidt. "You can't tell them they're backward-looking. Somebody should be fired in his campaign."


"Experts," get a clue. Obama is not saying that Hillary is too old. He's saying that she's part of the eeeeeeeeeevil 60's! And guess where he's saying this? On Fox News.

The right wing in this country is notoriously, loudly, proudly anti-gay. So who is Obama courting when he refuses to fire a proudly homophobic singer from his tour?

The right wing in this country longs for that fictional 50's America, when the country was white, prosperous and Christian. To them, the 60's were the worst thing that ever happened, and they're still trying to reverse the good things that came out of that time period. (Perhaps the Senator has forgotten he's African American, but I'd like to see how far he would have gotten running for office without the Civil Rights Movement.) So who is Obama courting when he says that Hillary belongs to that generation?

Let me also ask, how many Democrats watch Fox News? Who is Obama courting when he goes on Fox to spread his message of unity with the right wing?

It's so clear to me, as it has been from the beginning, that Obama is far more right-wing than any of the other Democratic contenders. That is the point of his campaign: I can unite America because I'm a conservative Democrat - never mind the color of my skin. I'm certainly not a scary 60's liberal like Senator Clinton! It's the Harold Ford strategy, and it's a disappointing (and losing) one.

Any Democrat but Obama, please.

Thursday, November 8, 2007

Giuliani and Robertson: Pehfect Tahgether?

Wow, one opportunistic, amoral thug who makes his money and reputation off of someone else's achievements is supporting his twin in the secular world, Rudy NineEleven!

I suppose that Robertson's support may drag a few Christofascists over to the Giuliani side. But I've been saying for years that New York's Nosferatu will not make it through the primaries. Why? Thanks to years of recruitment, the right-wing evangelicals are the ones that determine the Fascist candidate. And they are not too pleased with teh Rudy, since he actually feels a woman should have the right to choose what happens to her own body.

Still, supposing the race doesn't turn out to be Huckabee vs. Edwards, as I think it will be when the dust clears. Suppose the media is right for the first time in a long time, and suppose the two candidates are Hillary and Rudy. I've got the perfect ad for Hillary. Check it out!

No charge, Hillary!

Wednesday, November 7, 2007

My Letter to the Judiciary Committee

It seems that the Judiciary Committee is just too busy to consider the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney.

Perhaps they need to hear another point of view.

To the Chairman and Members of the Judiciary Committee,

If you are really interested in stopping the bombing of Iran, you will consider this impeachment resolution without delay. There is nothing more important than stopping the lawless warmongering of this out-of-control Executive.

Thank you.
If you are so inclined, click here to write your own letter or call the Committee. Do whatever you can - just let them know that there is no more important business than removing Dick Cheney from office.

Well...except removing George W. Bush from office. But, business before pleasure.

Carry Me Back to Blue Virginny! (And Kentucky!)

Woo-Freaking-Hoo!!!

Democrats wrested control of the Senate from the Republicans in yesterday's legislative elections, picking up the four seats they needed to give them a majority of at least 21 to 19 and end a decade of GOP dominance in the chamber.

Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) claimed victory in a celebration at Tysons Corner. The Republicans retained control of the House, but the Democrats also gained seats there. The party's surge will help the governor advance much of his agenda during his last two years in office, including investing more in education, health and the environment.

"It's an exciting time," Kaine said in interview. "It enables me to get even more done."

It appears that even incumbents in Southern states aren't safe any more.

Politically wounded and unable to find a compelling message to voters, Gov. Ernie Fletcher failed to win a second four-year term as Kentuckians overwhelmingly swept Democrat Steve Beshear into office Tuesday.

Beshear, a lieutenant governor and attorney general in the 1980s, completed an unlikely political comeback by winning the governor’s office — a position he sought unsuccessfully 20 years ago.

He defeated Fletcher by about 17 percentage points, according to unofficial returns.
The Fascists, thanks to their oh-so-brilliant strategy of playing only to their extreme rightwing base, are finally starting to achieve the permanent minority status they so richly deserve.

It's a good day.

Tuesday, November 6, 2007

It's a Big Day in Congress.

The Mukasey confirmation vote in the Senate and the Kucinich Impeachment Resolution of Dick Cheney in the House are both supposed to be put forward today.

Let me be clear about my feelings on Mukasey. I have no doubt that, as Senators Schumer and Feinstein are saying, George W. Bush could recess appoint someone "worse" than Mukasey if the Judge is not confirmed. Indeed, the mind boggles at some of the horrendous Bush cronies that could be foisted upon the American people. Ted Olson, for example. [shudder]

But politically speaking, the American people know that if Bush can't get a nominee past Congress, he has lost. Even though Bush forced John Bolton in as Ambassador to the U.N., Bolton had no credibility because we all knew that even the Fascists did not want him to represent our government. It follows that if the Democrats oppose Bush completely on his nominees for AG, they will have won the war, even if they lose the battle.

Standing up to Bush is a political winner. Period. A President with Nixonian approval ratings should not be seen to have the least bit of support for any of his initiatives from the opposition party. Such support gives the mistaken impression that our representatives agree with Bush and are no different from him. Unfortunate indeed, since the Democrats' very slim majority - and the Fascists' united support of their Dear Leader - often leaves them with only bad or worse choices, such as fighting the semi-rational Mukasey or getting an even more corrupt and enabling AG appointed during recess.

I'm not saying that some of the Democrats aren't Fascist lite - I believe that the ones that vote consistently with Bush, such as, for example, Al Wynn from Maryland - actually are. But don't the majority of Democrats know by now that if they give Bush anything he wants, whatever good intentions they may have, they will be perceived as enablers?

Better to fight the good fight and lose, than to be seen as a Vichy Democrat by your supporters. The Fascists have known this forever. In this one instance, we would be well-advised to learn from our enemies.

UPDATE! Dennis Kucinich's resolution to impeach Dick Cheney has gone to John Conyers and the Judiciary Committee. Stay tuned to the Internets - no coverage will appear on your teevee (unless you watch Keith Olbermann of course...)

Monday, November 5, 2007

Mukasey Opposition Action Day!

A very short post today (I figure I'm due):

Although the media is claiming that Judge ("Waterboarding/Unitary Executive Good") Mukasey is all but confirmed, the vote has not taken place yet. It will take place this Tuesday, so until then, our Democratic Senators can be persuaded to change their minds.

Here is a link to a form where you can email and/or call your Senators to let them know that Mr. Mukasey is completely unacceptable as an Attorney General. At first, he appeared to be a vast improvement over Gonzalez, but on the second day of his hearings, he revealed that there was a true Bush Lackey hiding under that semi-independent exterior.

The Justice Department has been the source, and the sustenance, of all the Bush Administration's anti-Constitutional, illegal actions since he took office. If we are to get any justice at all during the last days of this horror called the Bush Administration, we need a more independent Attorney General. Let your Senators know how you feel about Mukasey. At least we can try to make our voices heard.

Friday, November 2, 2007

Senators to Bush: Don't Do It

30 Senators (all Democrats and one Independent, of course) make it clear that the Lieberman-Kyl Amendment did not give Bush authority to make war on Iran.

Thirty US senators wrote to President George W. Bush Thursday, warning he had no authority to launch military action against Iran, and expressing concern about the administration's "provocative" rhetoric.

The senators, 29 Democrats and one independent, urged the resolution of disputes with the Islamic Republic through diplomacy.

"We wish to emphasize that no congressional authority exists for unilateral military action against Iran," the letter signed by senators including presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Joseph Biden said.

The letter warned that a resolution passed by the Senate in September, calling for the designation of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist group, should not be used as a pretext for war.

It hit out at "provocative statements and actions" by the administration on Iran, after Bush last month warned Tehran must be barred from nuclear weapons to avoid the prospect of "World War III."

"These comments are counterproductive and undermine efforts to resolve tensions with Iran through diplomacy," the letter, coordinated by Virginia Senator Jim Webb, said.
My feelings on this are mixed. I'm very happy that these Senators are now on record opposing Bush and his insane warmongering. But why did they give Bush the slightest encouragement in the first place? And what will they do if he bombs Iran anyway?

I was a big Hillary Clinton supporter until she voted for that amendment. Unfortunately, this letter doesn't make me feel that much better about her judgment. She's doing the right thing, but is it too late?

I am afraid that the Top Three Democrats - Clinton, Obama and Edwards - have all bought into the neo-con frames on foreign policy matters. Truthfully, all the Democrats are pretty good on domestic issues - certainly worlds better than Bush - so I'm not worried about that. What I'm worried about is that the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war for resources will continue after the new President is sworn in.

The horror!

Thursday, November 1, 2007

He's Come Undone

Well, well, well. It looks like for George Bush, Halloween was a day to take off his mask.

Our little Napoleon is very, very upset that the Democrats in Congress have not granted his blank check request for the war. He's terribly vexed that they keep showing, again and again, how heartless and uncaring he is by passing that pesky SCHIP legislation despite his vetos. But the final straw was when they showed that they expect the top law enforcement official in the United States, the Attorney General, to actually enforce the law. Now THAT is going too far, Congress! Who do you think you are - a co-equal branch or something?

So the Deciderer finally showed himself to America. And boy, was it ugly.

The White House plans to try implementing as much new policy as it can by administrative order while stepping up its confrontational rhetoric with Congress after concluding that President Bush cannot do much business with the Democratic leadership, administration officials said.

[snip]

White House aides say the only way Bush seems to be able to influence the process is by vetoing legislation or by issuing administrative orders, as he has in recent weeks on veterans' health care, air-traffic congestion, protecting endangered fish and immigration. They say they expect Bush to issue more of such orders in the next several months, even as he speaks out on the need to limit spending and resist any tax increases.

That's a Halloween horror story for you. How long before he follows Hitler's example and dissolves Congress altogether?

HR 333, Dennis Kucinich's impeachment measure, is coming up for a vote before Congress leaves for Thanksgiving. I will be pressing my House Rep to support it, and I hope we will all do so. Bush and Cheney must be impeached IMMEDIATELY, before our country completes its horrifying slide into fascism.

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Happy Halloween!

I don't know about you, but I think we Americans have been scared enough for the past 7 years.

So instead of posting a picture of Rudy JulieAndrews in drag, I'm linking to some of the cutest kitties on the InterWebs. If you haven't discovered Plush Life yet, you're in for a treat.

http://plush-life.blogspot.com/

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Decency

I've been listening to Thom Hartmann today, as I do almost every day, and in a rare moment, he said something that upset me.

As a truly fair and balanced guy, Thom always has at least one Fascist on his program. (Recently, he even had the grand-daddy of all neo-cons, Norman Podhoretz, on the show.) After the lunatic du jour had finished foaming at the mouth about SCHIP and how we would be murdering children if it were not vetoed by the Texecutioner, a caller started criticizing the Fascist, and Thom said, "He's a decent guy. I don't want to attack him personally; I just disagree with his policies."

I know that we liberals/progressives are forgiving and tolerant, but there's a serious flaw in this idea, and I think it is one that should be addressed. Unless you are saying that conservative pundits don't believe their own policies and are just spouting right-wing nonsense to get paid (which is bad enough), you are somehow divorcing a person's policies from his/her personality. How in the world does that work?

My personality is optimistic about the nature of humanity. I believe that as a group, we are basically good people, but that we can be misled by propaganda, fear and malignant leaders into supporting policies that are not good for us. Thus, I am a liberal/progressive, and any ideas I have regarding government will come out of those beliefs. In contrast, according to John Dean's excellent book "Conservatives without Conscience," conservatives believe that people are inherently evil, and thus advocate for Big Brother to hold our "bad" impulses (homosexuality being one, terminating a pregnancy another) in check through governmental regulations.

The Fascists understand that attack politics works, and that character does matter, precisely because of this fundamental truth: that a decent person does not advocate against giving health insurance to children, or support bombing Iran for no reason, or say that torture is just dandy, or support the removal of habeas corpus and other Constitutional rights in the name of "security."

Fascist pundits are not decent people. Fascist politicians are not decent people. And if our Democratic leadership would have another "At long last, have you no decency, sir?" moment, it could go a long way towards waking Americans from our long Orwellian nightmare.

Breaking: Ice Cubes Discovered in Hell!

Or...someone in the Bush administration did not get promoted for his criminal and unethical behavior! The Fake News Conference Guy, John "Pat" Philbin, will not be the new Director of Public Affairs for Mike McConnell as planned.

But don't get too excited. It's not like Skeletor fired him.

DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff has called for disciplinary action for the fake news event, which was held last Tuesday at the height of the California fires. But Philbin’s departure from FEMA is not related to any disciplinary action within DHS.

Philbin had long-standing plans to retire last Friday and begin a new position today at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. But the ODNI is distancing itself from Philbin and said in a statement today, “We do not normally comment on personnel matters. However, we can confirm that Mr. Philbin is not, nor is he scheduled to be, the Director of Public Affairs for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence."
As for the other FEMA employees involved in the faux-news-fest, I can't find any information on what happened to them, if anything. But Mr. Philbin appears to be the Fall Lackey for this particular attempt at catapulting the propaganda.

This is what we're astonished about these days - that a lying, criminal fool does not fail upward in the Bush Administration.

What a sad state of affairs.

Monday, October 29, 2007

Fake FEMA Press Conference - Fake Outrage from Chertoff

Skeletor pretends that he's shocked, SHOCKED I tell you, that his employees staged a press conference. But as usual, the expression of passionate outrage will not be followed by action.

Asked specifically if he planned to fire anyone at FEMA, which is part of his department, Chertoff declined to say, citing personnel rules.

"There will be appropriate discipline," he told reporters at a news conference with New York's governor where they announced an agreement on a driver's license plan.

Chertoff said he knew nothing about the matter until after it happened and that he "can't explain why it happened."
Ah yes, the buck stops at the Lackey level.

It's amazing how consistent these Bushies are, isn't it? Do they all go to Rove Indoctrination Camp to learn these strategies? Fake outrage? Blame the Lackey? Propaganda? Secrecy? Viciously attack anyone who disagrees with you? Bait and switch? Never do anything to help the American people if you can avoid it?

It seems like this story is actually getting through to the American people. The White House wagged a finger at FEMA. Chertoff made a strong statement. The question is, will there be any follow-up if no one is fired? Or will it fall off the media radar, as the victims of the California wildfires and of Hurricane Katrina have?

Friday, October 26, 2007

FEMA Decides They're Doing a Heckuva Job

From the Are You Fucking Kidding Me File:

FEMA stages fake news conference with P.R. people playing the role of journalists

Those weren't reporters questioning the deputy chief of FEMA earlier this week, they were federal employees playing the role of journalists during a televised briefing on the wildfires in southern California.

An agency spokesman tells The Washington Post that they didn't have time to wait for real reporters to come to their office near the U.S. Capitol. "We had been getting mobbed with phone calls from reporters, and this was thrown together at the last minute," Mike Widomski, FEMA's deputy director of public affairs, tells the paper.
This has been a horrible, horrible week for the victims of the wildfires in San Diego and the surrounding areas. How must they feel, knowing that their government is so disingenous, so terrified of its own constituents, that it feels it can't even face the milquetoast, cowed traditional media at a press conference? That its incompetence would blaze so bright that even Fox News Channel might be forced to point it out?

Perhaps they had a clue when Bush showed up for his 4-hour photo-op yesterday and said this:

"We've got a big problem out here," the president said near the end of his quick, four-hour visit. "We want the people to know there's a better day ahead - that today your life may look dismal, but tomorrow life's going to be better," Mr. Bush said. "And to the extent that the federal government can help you, we want to do so."
To the extent that the federal government can help you? We WANT to do so? Talk about parsing. Talk about the "meaning of 'is'." Gee, is it me, or does it seem that Bush actually promised NO HELP WHATSOEVER?

Yes, this is what you get when you buy into the neo-conservative idea that government shouldn't do anything to help people - a guy who thinks that the government shouldn't do anything to help people. Do we understand yet how bankrupt, how immoral, how completely and utterly WRONG this philosophy is? Or do the victims of Katrina and Rita have to be drowned all over again? Do more bridges have to collapse? Do we have to bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran, as John McCain would quip?

What is it going to take for the press to stop giving these neo-con, fascist freaks valuable time and money, to realize that their point of view is not valid and is, indeed, harmful to the United States - and for them to state these truths on the front page and on the Teevee?

The original story in the Washington Post was on page A-19, and I'll be shocked if any news program other than Countdown with Keith Olbermann picks it up. You'd think that fake news would be a huge story, reminding people of Pravda and all, but apparently, it's more important that Britney Spears did something or other today. Or was it Lindsay Lohan?

If I were a California resident who had lost my home, I would be both hopeful and pessimistic today. I'd be hopeful because the state has a Republican governor; but I'd be pessimistic because FEMA will not be coming to my aid. Not now, not ever - unless I want to live in a formaldehyde-ridden trailer. And that is a tragedy of American proportions.

Thursday, October 25, 2007

Cheney Dreams of Torture

Darth couldn't be bothered to stay awake during the videoconference about the California wildfires. Not enough death to keep you interested, Dick?

Meanwhile, Rudy Giuliani just can't seem to say that waterboarding is torture.

So let me summarize. The Republican platform is:

1) I hate gays, brown people and Muslims;
2) No one can take away my AK-47;
3) If everyone isn't Christian, both the world and my haid will explode;
4) War good, killing good, torturing good, talking and Constitution baaaad;
5) I don't give a shit about anyone but me.

What does their bumper sticker look like?

"Fascist Sociopaths Unite! Vote Republican in 2008."

No wonder they have to steal elections.

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Mukasey Update - Nice One, Democrats!

Heh-heh-heh. Looks like the Democrats were not so thrilled with Judge Michael Mukasey's hedging on waterboarding.

In response to Michael Mukasey's professed ignorance as to what waterboarding is, all eight Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have sent Mukasey a detailed primer on the centuries-old torture technique. It includes some surprising historical details: did you know, for instance, that during the occupation of Japan, the U.S. prosecuted Japanese soldiers who waterboarded U.S. POWs?

[snip]

The Senators write, "Please respond to the following question: Is the use of waterboarding, or inducing the misperception of drowning, as an interrogation technique illegal under U.S. law, including treaty obligations?"
Apparently, Mr. Mukasey will not be confirmed as Attorney General without answering that question. And it's a very important one, because Darth Cheney has famously claimed that using waterboarding in questioning suspected terrorists is a "no-brainer."

It looks like our Democratic Senators are learning how to screen the Deciderer's nominees - even the ones suggested by fellow Democrats as consensus-builders.

Very nicely done. Now, would you just listen to Chris Dodd about telecom immunity? Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama seem to have decided it's safe to follow his lead....

No One Escapes...The Mustache of Justice!

Not even Condi Rice! Or so TPM Muckraker reports.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is scheduled to appear before the House Oversight and Goverment Reform Committee Thursday to answer questions about corruption within the Iraqi government, the possibility of political reconciliation in that war-ravaged country and the department's controversial security contract with Blackwater USA, according to a release from the committee.

Oversight Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) has been pressing Rice and other agency officials for months to testify about corruption and the department's contract with Blackwater. According to the release, committee members will also be asking about allegations of misconduct in the construction of the U.S. embassy compound in Baghdad.
It appears that the last Bushies may be starting to waver and fall.

The most effective thing the Democrats have done since gaining their small majority in Congress, in my opinion, has been to investigate corruption. Corruption in the Justice Department? Those investigations led to the resignations of both Alberto Gonzalez and Karl Rove. Corruption in the State Department? The investigations have been blocked so far by Secretary Rice's refusal to testify, but they have already uncovered missing billions, criminal mercenaries and fraudulent construction contracts.

Can Rice's resignation be far behind? She's already all but invisible. Despite all the lovely noises about diplomacy the Bushies are making, we almost never read about Dr. Rice actually, um, DOING anything...and when she does, it's usually the wrong thing, and with a minder like Robert Gates to hold her hand.

If I were perfect, like Ann Coulter, I would thank Jeebus for public servants like Henry Waxman. As it is, I'll have to be content with sending him thanks and $$$$.

I hope he understands.

UPDATE: State Department Lackey #1 Resigns.

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Repeat After Me: Iran is Not a Threat.

Or so says the man who was right about Iraq's non-existent WMD.

[Mohammed] ElBaradei said force should be used only when all diplomatic options have failed, adding there was plenty of time for diplomacy, sanctions, dialogue and incentives to bear fruit.

"I want to get people away from the idea that Iran will be a threat from tomorrow, and that we are faced right now with the issue of whether Iran should be bombed or allowed to have the bomb," the Nobel peace prize winner said.

"We are not at all in that situation. Iraq is a glaring example of how, in many cases, the use of force exacerbates the problem rather than solving it."

Once again, it's bait-and-switch time. It's a double whammy - baiting us with Iraq, then switching to Iran; and baiting us with Joe Wilson, but switching to Valerie Plame.

Ms. Plame, in conjunction with the release of her book, Fair Game, has just disclosed that she was working on tracking Iran's nuclear intentions when her identity as an undercover CIA agent was leaked to the press by the Bushies. Common wisdom at the time was that the Bushies went after her to retaliate against her husband, who had just written an article stating that Bush's claims that Iraq was seeking nuclear material from Niger were patently false.

There was no question that this article was potentially extremely damaging to the pro-invasion cause. Ambassador Wilson's credentials were impeccable and he would be difficult to discredit. However, many have speculated that the true target of the leak was Ms. Plame herself.

George W. Bush made his "axis of evil" speech on January 29, 2002, long before the invasion of Iraq - and when Iran was led by the moderate President Khatami. Clearly, Iran was on Bush's mind. But why? Then as now, there was no indication at that time that Iran had any intention to attack America (or any other country), and Ahmadinejad, with his inflammatory anti-Israeli and anti-American rhetoric, was not the President.

Just as Alan Greenspan has admitted that Iraq was about oil (and, I would add, PNAC dreams of a world united under the American Empire), it seems obvious that the desire of many Bushies to attack Iran is about the same things.

Knowing that the desires for oil and power are not acceptable reasons to attack a country that has not attacked us, is it not possible that Bush and his cabal knew that Ms. Plame and her group were gathering intelligence that would disprove future claims of Iranian nuclear prowess? And that they acted to disable one of the CIA's most valuable assets before it could report that Iran had no nuclear weapons, just as Mohammed ElBaradei claims?

Ms. Plame herself believes the target of the Bushies' malevolence was indeed her husband and that she was just "collateral damage." Yet at the end of the interview, as reported by Raw Story, Ms. Plame said the following:

"I hope," said Plame, "that the American people have learned the lesson to pay close attention to what their leaders are saying and try to educate themselves and get as much information before we rush heading again into a disastrous war based on twisted intelligence."

Wouldn't it be so much easier to educate ourselves if we had Ms. Plame's reports on Iran's lack of nuclear weapons?

Friday, October 19, 2007

My Letter To Harry Reid

Hint, hint.

Dear Senator Reid,

I am extremely disappointed that you would wish to circumvent Senator Dodd's hold on the reprehensible Senate version of the FISA bill. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES should the telecom companies be given immunity for their lawbreaking actions. Senator Dodd is right and you are simply wrong on this issue.

The American people do not like lawbreakers. By giving Bush what he wants in this bill, you are directly sanctioning lawbreaking. Is that truly the position you want the Democratic leadership to take?

Thank you,

madamab


Seriously, Harry. RULE OF LAW. Ring any bells for ya?

I'm really tired of this crap from our leadership. We need more people like Chris Dodd...and like Representative Pete Stark from California. WOW.

Of course, the pundits are clutching their pearls about Pete Stark's remarks. On Countdown with Keith Olbermann last night, Dana Milbank opined that Stark should apologize. Why? Because President Bush "is a person and obviously does not enjoy killing people."

On top of the evidence in the link above, I would like to point to Bush's reputation as the "Texecutioner," executing 152 people as Governor, and to his mocking of Karla Faye Tucker's plea for leniency in her death penalty sentencing. Of course, since Bush and his cabal have taken over our government, literally millions of people have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is not an accident.

No, Stark should not apologize. Like Chris Dodd, he's finally telling it like it is.

It's refreshing to hear the truth coming out of Washington, isn't it?