McCain's no maverick, but a bitter partisan

I really wish someone could find the 2000 version of John McCain, because that man is long gone. He became a far right-wing conservative after getting cheated, lied about and bullied by the Bush campaign following the 2000 South Carolina GOP primary. It really is a shame.

Anyway, as McCain's appearance on Good Morning America Monday morning clearly shows, he's pretty out of touch with what's going on in the country, specifically with regard to health care. I have a major bone of contention with McCain's assertion that the Democrats "went against the will of the American people" (an assertion that just about every GOPer is parroting over and over and over again, putting a fresh topping on the old, unfortunate adage "keep on telling a lie over and over 'til they start to believe it"). More on the polls in a minute.

Yesterday, McCain ratcheted up the rhetoric, saying There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year. They [Democrats] have poisoned the well in what they've done and how they've done it." (From The Washington Post) Wow, that's pretty astounding from a so-called "Maverick" who in the past has made some pretty historic and honorable legislation from working with Democrats to get stuff done. If the people of Arizona are stupid enough to send this guy back to the Senate for six more years, then they deserve whatever they get. What a disgrace. Why not just retire then, "Mav"? Clearly the people of Arizona deserve something better than this crybaby.

Happily, David Axelrod, President Obama's Senior White House Advisor, wasted no time in issuing a tart response: "You know, that's okay on the sandlot, but it's not okay when you're trying to govern a country and move a country forward. It's a disappointing attitude." That about sums it all up.

If McCain was my Senator, even if this tirade was about a bill I disapproved of, I'd like to think I could rise above partisan politics and tell him that this sort of language is totally unacceptable coming from someone who is sent to Washington to do the people's work, and to quit pissing and moaning when he doesn't get his way, or win a presidential election. (Most except the most ardent McCain supporters would probably agree that he's become a bitter, cranky old codger since he lost to Obama last year. Give up the dream John, give up the dream. Spare yourself some dignity in defeat - if you need some instructions, see Kerry, John and Gore, Al - two people who behaved with truckloads more dignity than you are and who had a whole lot more to be angry about. In short, grow up - it's not all about you.)

Following Axelrod's comments, Brooke Buchanan, McCain's spokeswoman, shot back, "Senator John McCain will always stand on the side of the American people. Get used to it, Mr. Axelrod, that's what strong, independent members do - you'd know what if you had ever worked for one."

It just kept getting better and better. I guess when we need to hear from McCain now, we can rely on his pit bull spokeswoman for comment, or we can go to his Website to look for a press release, since he won't be cooperating with the Democratically controlled Congress.

Following all that, Jim Manley, spokesman for Harry Reid (D-NV), the Senate Majority Leader and a man who I don't have much admiration or respect for, scored some points with me yesterday with this acidic rebuke: "For someone who campaigned on 'country first' and claims to take great pride in bipartisanship, it's absolutely bizarre for Senator McCain to tell the American people he is going to take his ball and go home until the next election. He must be living in a parallel universe because the fact is, with very few exceptions, we've gotten very little cooperation from Senate Republicans in recent years."

~~

I firmly believe that once all of the right-wing propaganda clears from the GOP smokescreen machine, the American people aren't going to want this law repealed. Amended and tweaked? Without question, but that's already happening; the $750 fine for not having insurance has already been reduced to... ZERO. That was a good start.

Back to polling on the health care bill...

As I've already written, I take serious umbrage with Republicans saying, over and over, words to the effect that the Democrats "defied the will of the American people." Polls do not bear this out (at least the legitimate ones.) From Gallup, via The New York Times yesterday and MSNBC, on Monday, both obviously following Sunday night's passage of the health care bill:


Whoops! This is "defying the will of the American people"? In two words, that's unadulterated bullshit. These poll numbers should tilt further and further toward favoring this bill as the facts become clear to the American people. But, in order for that to happen, Obama and Democratic leaders have to do a much better job of articulating their messages - Repubes have always been better at getting phrases and terms that "stick" with the public; time for Democrats to do the same. I don't like it that America is largely a soundbite electorate, but that's the culture now, and Democrats need to get with it.

Stephanopoulos & Gingrich on drapes, race & Congressional leadership

I have a few clips from last Sunday's morning talk shows that are still worthy of mention, and the first one is from This Week.

There's a remarkable amount of b.s. in this minute-and-a-half video clip.

First, George Stephanopoulos trots out a phrase that's been hackneyed for nearly 20 years now (or maybe even longer), that Obama is "Measuring the drapes in the Oval Office..." Gimme a break. Stephanopoulos should know this line well - it's one that President George H.W. Bush used against then-Governor Bill Clinton in 1992 when Stephanopoulos was working on the Clinton campaign.

More recently, it was endlessly pimped by President Bush in before the '04 election, and even more extensively before the '06 election (see below).

Hmm - well, Republicans are many things, but certainly original isn't one of them.

Back to the video at top - I'm always pleased when networks bring in Newt Gingrich, because I never want to go too long without being reminded how much I truly despise the man. Notice how much red meat Gingrich is throwing to the far right in a very short time; I especially got a kick out of Gingrich's assertion that a President Obama will "restrict the free speech rights of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh," but notice how he gives no specifics.

So, on its face, you would think that Gingrich has some concrete proof about how Obama will suppress the free rights of Sean Goebbels and Rush Göring, but he doesn't. Know why? Because that's not what Obama wants to do; he wants to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine in some form, and to also enforce a law that's still on the books, the Sherman Antitrust Act. Those two things will undoubtedly affect right-wing hate radios hegemony over the airwaves, but it certainly won't suppress Hannity or Limbaugh's free speech rights. But, it's not a stretch to say that the GOP will spin it otherwise, especially if Obama wins the election.

Obama, if he's elected in 11 days, will have plenty on his plate, but I hope that at some point he does get around to addressing both of the above topics, because the citizens of this country will never truly "take our country back" until the corporate media is busted up for good. I know, I know - I shouldn't hold my breath, but it's what I firmly believe needs to happen. That, and keeping the Internet free from tiered services, which is what the greedy media companies are pining for. (Thankfully, with a Democratically controlled Congress and hopefully Obama in the White House, the 'Net will be safe for the time being.)

I can't believe that I'm agreeing with Gingrich on anything, but I do agree with him on one point - Congress will likely be Democratically controlled, with large majorities in each house, and both houses are in desperate need for real leadership. And that means kicking Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid out of their leadership positions. Both have been miserable failures, and following the election, I will write Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) and U.S. Rep. Bob Brady (D-PA), both of my Democratic legislators, to demand just that - leadership with a spine that is willing do many of the things that need to be done to get this country back in shape.

Of course, in the video above, Gingrich also railed about taxes, which comes as no surprise. But, it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that taxes must be raised to combat the ballooning deficit, which is spiraling out of control. The question is by how much and who will pay more. Taxes are going to have to go up, and spending is going to have to come down in some areas - reducing the deficit must be a two-pronged approach.

Stephanopoulos also brought up "race" at the end of the clip. *Yawn* I think the predictable people will vote against Obama for this reason, but overall, I predict it won't have much of an impact. The only "race" that matters is the presidential one, and it's trending our way. But, I'm very, very wary for many reasons, so of which I will get to in successive posts this weekend.

Is Bush radioactive? We can only hope...

I love The McLaughlin Group. Although I rarely get a chance to watch it, I do watch the more noteworthy clips on my favorite blogs. It's just hilarious - it looks like it's shot in someone's basement. It's not difficult to picture Wayne's World being shot across the hall.

During a recent show, the panel discussed the "Bush Factor" this fall, and what it will mean for Congressional candidates, and I agree with their assertions. Polls are bearing this out as well; Bush campaigning for a candidate will most likely mean one thing: electoral poison.

Just a quick aside: who uses the word skedaddle? Too funny. I do like McLaughlin's list of Bush's legacy, though:

1. GOP House majority gone (he should have added the Senate, too)
2. Tanked the dollar's value
3. Red ink in federal budget
4. U.S./Iraq quagmire
5. U.S. recession and inflation
6. Then skedaddled out of town

It's still early, so Democrats had best not count their Congressional chickens yet, especially considering the recent poll that gave Congress a stunningly inept 9 percent approval rating. Nine percent?!? Don't members of Congress get at least 10 percent for showing up? Maybe Congress should change its name to C-O-N-G-R-E-S, and leave off the last S for stupidity. Sen. Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi have done a pathetically inadequate job in combating the Bush agenda, most notably his wars in Iraq and on the environment, so they deserve whatever ratings they are getting. (To say nothing about the "investigations" of the Bush administration that have gone nowhere. I don't know what's worse - all of the crimes and impeachable offenses this administration has committed, or the fact that Democrats have let them get away with it.)

Both Reid and Pelosi ought not to be re-elected to their leadership positions next year, especially considering, in all likelihood, that the Democrats will pad their majorities in both houses of Congress.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see Bush's impact on the election this fall, be it positive or negative, for Republicans. Actually, the only good Republicans can hope to get from Bush is if our sitting Windshield Cowboy decides to go to Crawford to clear brush in lieu of campaigning for GOP candidates.

No Way! Harry Reid... making sense!

Don't look now, but Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), the senate majority leader, actually makes a whole lot of sense in this interview aired on CapNews.Net. Too bad Congressional Democratic "leaders" have shown little backbone since the '06 election when confronted with a hostile minority in Congress and also a president who hasn't hesitated to use his veto pen.

I'll say this about Reid - he has many good ideas, and his motives seem to be noble, but the minute Republicans oppose him on a given issue, he, along with the rest of the Democratic leadership, folds up like a cheap rug.

Video via CapNews.Net
h/t PoliticsTV

Latest This Modern World

[Click for larger image]

Here's done better, but he's spot on about Zell Lieberman, though. It's now plain to see, and was pretty easy to predict after Lieberman's victory last November - he's dedicated his term in the Senate to making the Democrats pay for having opposed him in last spring's Democratic Primary against Ned Lamont.

I'm very much looking forward to next year, when hopefully the Democrats can gain a wider margin in the Senate, thereby rendering Lieberman toothless. But, the way things are going, that's an uphill climb, too; Harry Reid couldn't lead a Boy Scout Troop. He's the biggest disgrace of a Senate Majority Leader in my lifetime.

Bush v. Democracy: Bush wins, again

Once again, President Bush has subverted the will of the American people, and certainly the spirit of our democracy. The only question that remains is, what will Congress and the Democrats do about it?

Actually, that's not the most important question. Even a passive follower of politics knows that the Democrats are all opposed to most of Bush's foreign and domestic policies. The most burning question now is, when will enough Congressional Republicans get sick and tired enough to do something about it? So far, scant few voiced opposition; Chuck Hagel, Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter are among the prominent who come to mind. But, it's going to take many more than that to be able to legislatively and legally do anything about Bush and Cheney's subversion of our democracy.

The latest outrage - earlier this month, both houses of Congress, by large margins, passed a bill taking away the Justice Department's right to appoint interim U.S. attorneys (for an indefinite period) without Senate approval. The bill has been on Bush's desk since June 4. A president must sign a bill into law within 10 days (not counting Sundays), or the bill automatically becomes law. Not even Bush would be stupid enough to let this bill become law without his signature. Today was the deadline.

However, Bush had one maneuver left yesterday before signing the bill into law - he appointed one more U.S. attorney, in this case installing George Cardona as an interim U.S. Attorney in the Central District of California.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) was not pleased. Today in a hearing, Leahy ripped Bush over the controversial move:

That bill, the Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007, has been on the president's desk since June 4th. Do you know it seems he just can't bring himself to sign it? Instead, we were informed yesterday through the Justice Department that the attorney general has used the power that we voted to repeal again.

It's almost like they live in an alternate world, as though they're not realizing the reaction of Democrats and Republicans about this misuse of this power. That's wrong.

Well, Senator Leahy, that's a start. It's more than "just wrong," it's giving the middle finger to the American people and our way of government.

It's important to note that the Justice Department (and by extension, President Bush) should NEVER have had the power to appoint U.S. attorneys in the first place - the provision was furtively put into the USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization Act of 2005 at the very last minute by someone in Sen. Arlen Specter's (R-PA) office, under Specter's name. Specter was recovering from cancer treatment. I don't know if that account is true, but I've heard it from some credible sources, most notably liberal talk show host Thom Hartman. The guy who was instrumental in getting that provision into the bill? Timothy Griffin, who was later appointed interim U.S. attorney for Arkansas.

More on Griffin in a future post, and his role in caging during the 2004 election.

That only question now is, what will Congress do about Bush's final appointment? I'm sure Sen. Harry Reid is planning the Bush "no confidence" vote right now. What a joke. Alberto Gonzales really should be forced to resign or impeached. But, with the backbone this Congress is proving to have, neither is likely probable.

It's time to write our legislative leaders to tell them what we think of this latest move. I'll share my letter to my two senators with you tomorrow.

Think Progress has more.

Dennis Miller: unfunny GOP hack

When I think about the 2008 election and all of its implications, my biggest worry about the Democrats' seemingly bottomless capacity to shoot themselves in the foot can be summed up in two words: Harry Reid.

What a disaster Reid has been for the Democrats, who surely must be ruing the day that they ever elected him to be Senate Majority Leader. Sitting through a session of the U.S. Senate with the current leadership must be a lot like sitting through a student council meeting in junior high - lots of complaining, but nothing gets done.

Having said that, nobody screws up a valid political point like Dennis Miller. Is there anyone less funny than Dennis Miller right now? He appears weekly on Fersatz News' Half Hour News Hour to deliver a 2-3 minute rant. Unlike his former HBO show, Dennis Miller Live, Half Hour is the worst bore in the history of television. As I've previously written, it's so bad I hope Fox sticks with it. By the way, has a show ever been more appropriately named than this one? After watching two episodes in their entirety (cue canned applause track, just like the show), my first thought was, "What a great name - this show sucked so bad, the half hour really did feel like an hour."

Anyway, Miller's rants aren't like his old rants on his HBO show, where he's start off with, "Now I don't want to get off on a rant here..." These are much worse than that. For instance, in the clip above, it takes Miller nearly two-and-a-half minutes to say what I can say in five seconds:

Harry Reid is an incompetent pussy.

Instead, Miller takes us through a verbal tour of his dictionary, thesaurus and laundry list of non sequiturs. Just awful. But, I'm not surprised - only a hack like Miller could screw up what should have been his dream job - color commentary on Monday Night Football. In a 2006 ESPN SportsCenter poll, Miller was once voted the worst color commentator in MNF history. No doubt only because he beat out Rush Limbaugh for the job in 2000.

What's more, you know that Miller sucked when conservative blogs were flogging his Reid rant as "the most devastating take-down in political history." Maybe to people with an attention span of three months. I can think of many more that were better.

Right off the top of my head comes then-vice presidential candidate Lloyd Bentsen, famously telling Dan Quayle, "Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy."

An even better one is from a recent issue of Rolling Stone, when my favorite Republican candidate, Rudy Giuliani, gets gangsta slapped in a piece by Matt Taibbi entitled Giuliani: Worse than Bush. An excerpt:

Rudy Giuliani is a true American hero, and we know this because he does all the things we expect of heroes these days — like make $16 million a year, and lobby for Hugo Chávez and Rupert Murdoch, and promote wars without ever having served in the military, and hire a lawyer to call his second wife a "stuck pig," and organize absurd, grandstanding pogroms against minor foreign artists, and generally drift through life being a shameless opportunist with an outsize ego who doesn't even bother to conceal the fact that he's had a hard-on for the presidency since he was in diapers. In the media age, we can't have a hero humble enough to actually be one; what is needed is a tireless scoundrel, a cad willing to pose all day long for photos, who'll accept $100,000 to talk about heroism for an hour, who has the balls to take a $2.7 million advance to write a book about himself called Leadership. That's Rudy Giuliani. Our hero. And a perfect choice to uphold the legacy of George W. Bush.

. . .

Like Bush's, Rudy's career before the bombing was in the toilet; New Yorkers had come to think of him as an ambition-sick meanie whose personal scandals were truly wearying to think about. But on the day of the attack, it must be admitted, Rudy hit the perfect note; he displayed all the strength and reassuring calm that Bush did not, and for one day at least, he was everything you'd want in a leader. Then he woke up the next day and the opportunist in him saw that there was money to be made in an America high on fear.

For starters, Rudy tried to use the tragedy to shred election rules, pushing to postpone the inauguration of his successor so he could hog the limelight for a few more months. Then, with the dust from the World Trade Center barely settled, he went on the road as the Man With the Bullhorn, pocketing as much as $200,000 for a single speaking engagement. In 2002 he reported $8 million in speaking income; this past year it was more than $11 million. He’s traveled in style, at one stop last year requesting a $47,000 flight on a private jet, five hotel rooms and a private suite with a balcony view and a king-size bed.

While the mayor himself flew out of New York on a magic carpet, thousands of cash-strapped cops, firemen and city workers involved with the cleanup at the World Trade Center were developing cancers and infections and mysterious respiratory ailments like the "WTC cough." This is the dirty little secret lurking underneath Rudy's 9/11 hero image — the most egregious example of his willingness to shape public policy to suit his donors. While the cleanup effort at the Pentagon was turned over to federal agencies like OSHA, which quickly sealed off the site and required relief workers to wear hazmat [sic] suits, the World Trade Center cleanup was handed over to Giuliani. The city's Department of Design and Construction (DDC) promptly farmed out the waste-clearing effort to a smattering of politically connected companies, including Bechtel, Bovis and AMEC construction.

. . .

Did Giuliani know the air at the World Trade Center was poison? Who knows — but we do know he took over the cleanup, refusing to let more experienced federal agencies run the show. He stood on a few brick piles on the day of the bombing, then spent the next ten months making damn sure everyone worked the night shift on-site while he bonked his mistress and negotiated his gazillion-dollar move to the private sector. Meanwhile, the people who actually cleaned up the rubble got used to checking their stool for blood every morning.

Now Giuliani is running for president — as the hero of 9/11. George Bush has balls, too, but even he has to bow to this motherfucker.

Now that's what I call a Dan Gable-like political take down.

In fact, it's the best beat down of Giuliani I've read yet. And, most incoveniently for America's Mayor, it's true.

Anyway, back to my original point: Dennis Miller is a talentless hack who can't hold down a steady job in TV on any network besides Fox Noise Channel. He's like Sean Hannity with jokes. Now THAT'S funny.

Hmm. That took about 15 seconds, and not one esoteric reference.

Miller's right about one thing, though - Harry Reid is a pussy. He just doesn't need to take so long to say it in his stupid and humorless way.

Latest This Modern World

[Click for larger image]

Tom Tomorrow gets it right, again.

For a guy who served who served as commissioner of the Nevada state gaming commission from 1977 to 1981, Sen. Harry Reid is proving to be pretty spineless. As state gaming commish, he received numerous death threats, and his wife once found a bomb attached to one of their cars (he was commish during the dying days of the Mafia in Las Vegas).

Having that job no doubt took a great deal of intestinal fortitude. I sure wish he'd find some now.

Olbermann special comment on war funding

I know I'm bringing this one to you a bit late, but it's still apropos, and just as powerful as the day Keith Olbermann delivered it a little over a week ago.

This is one Olbermann's best, most powerful special comments in memory. I can't even add much to what he says, only that I emphatically agree. Sen. Harry Reid is an absolute disgrace - I no longer have any confidence whatsoever in his ability to lead the Democrats, and this Congress, to do anything resembling forcing our war-criminal president to withdraw our troops from Iraq.

And quite frankly, I don't have all that much more confidence in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The only solace I have in both Pelosi and Reid leading Congress is that at least they are stirring up debate about this war. But, in reality, that is about all they are doing. However, if Republicans still controlled Congress, there would have been no debate - it would have been another rubber-stamped war funding bill.

I do tire of World War II references in our political discourse, but in this case, Olbermann is right to bring up Neville Chamberlain; because that's exactly who the Democrats resemble right now.

Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and President Bush have all won again - there can be no doubt. I've never seen a party so scared to stand up for what the voters returned them to power for in the first place - to end this war. The Democrats resemble the scrawny geek on the playground who is scared of the class bully (the GOP); all the bully has to do is raise his fist and threaten violence, and the geek runs away.

It's worth noting that Republicans can and must share blame for the continuation of funding for this war - were it not for the large block of Republicans who voted against cutting off funding and putting in time lines for withdraw, the end of this war would be in sight. It's Republicans who prevented veto-proof passage of a bill with time lines for withdraw in both houses of Congress. Where I find major fault with Democrats is that they took one stab at sending Bush a funding bill with withdraw mandates, he vetoed it, and the Dems clapped their hands and sighed, "We tried."

Our troops are no closer to coming home today than they were the day after the elections last November, so the debate over funding is just political posturing that has made no difference in the lives of our soldiers and their families. Tell the troops in Iraq who are fighting, some of whom may die today and tomorrow, that Congress is "debating," and see what type of response you get.

The whole "fund the troops or they will be in jeopardy" is the biggest farce, the worst line of b.s. that I've heard in American politics in years, if not decades. Does anyone HONESTLY BELIEVE that Bush and the military would leave our troops in Iraq to die if they ran out of ammunition, fuel and food of funding were cut off?

The bottom line is that this was a game of political chicken, and the Democrats blinked. This should surprise no one. In the pit of my stomach, I knew the Dems didn't have the political will to do what was right. Republicans simply have a much more powerful, stronger PR and marketing effort in their campaign and efforts for perpetual war.

What's the worst that could have happened to the Democrats if they denied funding to the troops - if they had held their ground? The American public would have been outraged, (and I don't think so) and the Democrats would have lost power in 2008, BUT the troops would have had to be withdrawn from Iraq. Now, the troops remain in harm's way, and the Democrats may lose power anyway because they've been exposed as the spineless wimps they truly are.

White House rejects Democratic proposal on war funding

This is probably the least surprising political news of the week. The White House, in yet another amazing show of hubris and stubbornness, has rejected the Democrats' latest war funding proposal.

Anyone with a pulse who has even heard of the word Iraq can't be surprised by this latest development. President Bush has grown accustomed to a blank check since this war began, and it's pretty obvious he's not going to give it up without a fight.

However, clearly there are some cracks developing in Republican Congressional support. Last week, 11 Republicans went to the White House to let Bush know that he can't count on their support forever.

Now, September seems to be the buzz month du jour - we're promised if things aren't better by then, there will have to be a Plan B.

I don't think this administration has a Plan B. If it did, we would have seen it long ago, because Plan A certainly isn't working.

It doesn't take a political consultant to figure out that the only reason Republicans are even doing this is because there's an election coming up, and they need political cover to prevent a colossal disaster in the '08 election.

Bush has given in on benchmarks, but he remains firm on no timelines. He simply wants an infinite war, or at the very least, war until noon on January 20, 2009, so his precious legacy is protected. That way, Bush won't be the president who pulled our troops out of Iraq in defeat.

From today's New York Times:

Congressional Democrats and the White House remained at odds over a war spending measure on Friday after a crucial negotiating session ended with both sides expressing disappointment and accusing the other of being intractable.

Democrats said the White House chief of staff, Joshua B. Bolten, rejected their offer to eliminate non-Pentagon spending and give President Bush the authority to waive a timeline for withdrawal of troops from Iraq in return for their approval of about $95 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through Sept. 30.

"No - everything was no," said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, characterizing the response by White House officials and Republican leaders of the House and Senate who took part in the talks.

Republicans said they were caught by surprise by the Democratic posture in the meeting, in the offices of the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, given that Mr. Bush has already vetoed one spending measure containing a withdrawal timeline and has made it clear that he will not accept such a proposal.

"The Democratic leaders did talk about having timelines for withdrawal that might be waivable," Mr. Bolten told reporters after the morning meeting, saying Democrats seemed dug in on the timeline issue. "We consider that to be not a significant distinction."

What I find breathtaking is that Bolten thinks that the president vetoing the first funding bill should have or would have signaled the end of Democratic opposition to the war. As if a veto takes away all Congressional opposition, and Democrats should simply tuck their tail between their legs and submit to Bush's will.

Not a chance. At least, not a chance if Democrats hope to remain in control of Congress beyond 2008.

I urge every one of you to call and/or e-mail your Congressional representatives and urge them to not cave to Bush on funding this war.

One other quick footnote to the funding - pretty funny how the U.S. Army still seems to be functioning. I remember a month ago, it was going to be the end of the Earth if the funding didn't get approved immediately. Well, the Army is still standing.

3,401 U.S. soldiers and counting...

Is there any end to this tragedy?

Photo from HuffPo

Congress passes bill, W vetoes, Congress fails to override (and other thoughts)

It's been a pretty remarkable week in Washington - the anniversary of Mission Accomplished, Congress finally passing a Bill to fund the troops, Bush vetoes it, and Congress fails to override his veto.

I've got some video clips below with some thoughts, but first, Bush's latest self-imposed nickname:

Uniter, Not a Divider
War-time President
The Decider
The Commander Guy

On Tuesday, Bush vetoed the Bill passed by both houses of Congress fully funding the war (and then some), but mandating that the troops begin to come home. Congress failed to override his veto yesterday, and that's when Bush made comedians everywhere jump for joy, yet again.

"The question is, 'Who ought to make that decision, the Congress or the commanders?," said Bush. "As you know, my position is clear – I'm the commander guy." [Emphasis Mine]

Both sides said after Congress failed to override Bush's veto that they believed compromise was possible. That's news, considering it hasn't been possible so far. Personally, my view is that Congress had better hold its ground. That's what the Democrats were returned to power to do.

Yesterday, Bush vowed if Democrats try to tie his hands in prosecuting the war, he will issue another veto.

Coming Soon: The Vetoer

My thoughts on the last few days...

I got a kick out of White House spokeswoman Dana Perino calling the signing ceremony held by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid a "cynical publicity stunt." What a sanctimonious, hypocritical thing to say from an administration that has turned publicity stunts into cliché. Considering the sheer absurdity the Bush administration resorts to in order to prove its political points, it's not hard to imagine some White House events being skits for Saturday Night Live or The Daily Show, except we never get the punchline. On Monday, America just observed the fourth anniversary of the biggest (and saddest) political publicity stunt ever.

Anyway, YES, what Pelosi and Reid did was a publicity stunt, without question, but they did it to make a powerful political statement. It appears that getting in the face of the President Bush and the American public is necessary to bring this war to a merciful end. To date, more subtle means have proved fruitless.

Oh, I've got lots to talk about with this one. Above is video of Bush's press conference, immediately after vetoing the funding Bill.

Bush begins with:

"Good evening. Twelve weeks ago, I asked the Congress to pass an emergency war spending bill that would provide our brave men and women in uniform the funds and flexibility they need. Instead, members of the House and the Senate passed a bill that substitutes the opinions of politicians, for the judgment of our military commanders."

My first thought after hearing Bush blabber on about "substituting the opinions of politicians," was... um, no, Mr. President.

These politicians have passed a bill that respects and reflects the will of the American people, who spoke up loud and clear last November, and who continue to do so around the nation in just about every opinion poll I've read. The American people want this war over. NOW. Currently, opposition to the war is running at about 66 percent, give or take a few points, depending on the poll.

Think I'm exaggerating about the election last November? Then why did every Democrat up for reelection retain his or her seat in Congress?

I grow so tired of this administration bemoaning Congress' insistence that deadlines be attached to funding the war. Of course, you can find 24 sound bites coming out of the mouth of a Republican, depending on which day of the week you listen, that says, in so many words, "It's setting a date for defeat" or "Our enemies will simply set their calendars and wait."

That's what they are already doing. If Bush ever picked up a history book (like that's gonna happen), he'd know that the template for defeating the giant American military machine has been in place since Vietnam. (Of course, had he not dodged serving in Vietnam, he'd know, too, but I digress.)

In a war of attrition, the way to beat the United States is by steadily chipping away, day by day, American death by American death. Sooner or later, the American public will grow tired of dead sons and daughters coming home in flag-draped coffins. Of course, this is not always the case - the important variable in this theory is that the cause and reason for the war must be just in the eyes of a majority of Americans. In World War I and World War II, it was. In Korea, call it a push. In Vietnam and the current War in Iraq, the answer is an emphatic "no."

Bush continues:

It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing. All the terrorists would have to do is mark their calendars and gather their strength, and begin plotting how to overthrow the government and take control of the country of Iraq.

Noo, they aren't trying to do that now, are they, Mr. President?

Here's a whopper - "I believe setting a deadline would demoralize the people of Iraq," Bush says. You mean the same people who polls consistently show want us OUT of Iraq? (By overwhelming margins) Those Iraqi people?

And another - "...that means commanders in a combat zone would have to take directions from politicians 6,000 miles away in Washington, D.C." 1. That's what Donald Rumsfeld did for nearly four years - from the start of this war until he "quit" the day after the 2006 election. Rummy constantly (and tragically) issued a constant stream of marching orders to commanders on the ground. 2. Don't our military leaders answer to the civilian politicians who are elected by the American people? I think I read that somewhere once.

I'm NOT for micromanaging the war, 1960s Lyndon Johnson-style, when members of his administration, most notably Defense Secretary Bob McNamara, personally selected bombing targets. That's beyond absurd. But, here's a thought that I'm yet to hear anyone say - maybe the commanders in our military are incompetent and don't know what they are doing? They are in a tough spot, no question, and Bush sent them there, but the bottom line is, they are not getting the job done. Our military commanders have had over four years to get the job done, at a cost of over 3,300 American lives, $500 billion and countless wounded and maimed soldiers. It's time for this madness to end. But, no politician dare say that - if you do, you're not "supporting the troops."

Yet, Bush and Republicans want an endless war. We're consistently told that "we need time to see if this plan will work."

This administration has been wrong about every single aspect of this war, every step of the way. Without running through a laundry list of things Bush and his cabal have been wrong about (who has that much time?!?), I'll just stick to one - the reasons for going to war.

Weapons of Mass Destruction
Bring Democracy to the Middle East, where it will flourish
He was an imminent threat
Iraq was involved in 9-11
(Followed by "We never said that.")
The supposed Prague meeting between al Qaeda and Iraqi leaders
He has reconstituted his nuclear weapons program
To liberate the people of Iraq (we'll be greeted as liberators

And on and on and on. This isn't a war, it's a PR effort with deaths. It's not the policy, or the war - it's the message. Apparently, no one gets it in American except the White House.

From before the outset of hostilities over four years ago, Bush has continuously kept trying out new labels or ideas until they found one that stuck. (It reminds me of the saying, "Throw a bunch of things at a wall, and see what sticks.")

Bush's decrying of pork-barrel spending (in the video above) is beyond comedy. Keep hammering away at those talking points, Mr. President. Does Bush have any credibility left? One can't find a single spending bill he has ever vetoed, because he never has. Funny how when the Republicans were in power, pork was never an issue.

I don't agree with it tacking on spending to bills, and the Democrats are not completely innocent when it comes to pork. But, it's how things get done in Washington. Certainly, it needs to change, but we can't solve all that is wrong in Washington with one bill. It's just another in a long line of examples of Bush using a canard to distract from the real issue.

Bush has no idea what political deal making is, because he's never had to do it while president. With an exception of about 18 months when Jim Jeffords defected from the Republicans, temporarily giving the Democrats a one-seat majority in Bush's first term, Bush has had an all GOP, rubber-stamp Congress. He hasn't had to make any deals, nor has he ever had to reach out to Democrats to accomplish anything. He's now faced with that reality, and quite frankly, he has no tolerance for it, and he doesn't even know how to go about it.

What's more, Bush has made so many enemies, it'll be tough getting anything done before he leaves office. Considering Bush's conduct during his 6+ years in office, if I were a DemocratIC member of Congress, I would be in no mood to work with him at all.

Here's another thought - why does Congress have to continuously pass these emergency appropriation bills? Why isn't all of this money included in Bush's original budget? How in the world can an administration be hundreds of billions of dollars off in its estimate for the war's cost? (Flashback: It's "fuzzy math") The reason's pretty simple - if these numbers were included in a yearly budget, that budget would have zero chance of passing, because even the spend-crazy Congress would get sticker shock.

Bush whining about "getting the troops the equipment they need," is the height of hypocrisy, since the troops haven't had all of the best technology and equipment available to them since the war began. (The best Humvees and body armor are only two examples, and let's not forget about Walter Reed and the disgraceful neglect that troops suffer once they do return home.)

Bush continues: Al Qaeda is "the enemy that everyone agrees we should be fighting." You mean Osama bin Laden? That al Qaeda? (By the way, can this White House hire a linguist? It's SUBVERT, W, not "subert.")

Bush no doubt took great delight in mentioning what General David Petraeus said last week in Washington: "Iraq is, in fact, the central front in of all al Qaeda's global campaign." That's because the United States is occupying Iraq.

And finally, it's a Bush staple to never miss an opportunity to bring up "September the 11th," as he calls it, in ANY speech about Iraq, even though he's publicly admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, but two minutes later, he'll imply the two are linked. Lie, lie, lie until you start to believe it, right, Mr. President?

This is Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi responding to Bush's veto. I don't have much to add here, other than to reaffirm that these two are spot on - our troops are in an open-ended civil war in Iraq.

Good point by Pelosi about then-Governor Bush calling for Bush to lay out a timetable for the War in Kosovo circa 1999.

I'd say Bush is a hypocrite, but that's a double negative.

Photos at top from HuffPo and AP

Broder embodies what's wrong at WaPo

Today's Washington Post, is a newspaper with amazing ability, yet one with an equally amazing amount of contradictions.

Very seldom do I read a newspaper column where I nearly jump out of my chair with outrage. Yesterday was one of those days. In a Thursday column (which I heard about yesterday), long-time WaPo political columnist David S. Broder wrote a piece, The Democrats' Gonzales, which almost defies description.

He begins his column with this whopper:

Here's a Washington political riddle where you fill in the blanks: As Alberto Gonzales is to the Republicans, Blank Blank is to the Democrats -- a continuing embarrassment thanks to his amateurish performance.

If you answered "Harry Reid," give yourself an A. And join the long list of senators of both parties who are ready for these two springtime exhibitions of ineptitude to end.

To suggest that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is even on the same planet of incompetence and obfuscation as Alberto Gonzales is as asinine a comment as I've ever read from a Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist.

To briefly compare...

Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, this past week became the first political leader in Washington with enough moxie to publicly conclude what a majority of the American people did months (if not years) ago - that the war is lost.

On the other hand, we have Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who has more controversy surrounding him than... Karl Rove. Oops.

From claiming that there is no constitutional right to habeas corpus (see video below), his involvement in the firing of U.S. Attorneys, and his alleged involvement in the NSA warrantless wiretapping and domestic eavesdropping, to compare Reid to Gonzo is just absurd.

Concerning the NSA eavesdropping controversy, we'll never know the truth, or Gonzo's role, because the investigation was abruptly shut down after President Bush denied investigators the required security clearances to conduct their investigation.

But, perhaps nothing Gonzales has done is more controversial, or has had more far-reaching implications than his 2002 memorandum to Bush opining the Geneva Conventions were "outdated." From WaPo:

Gonzales is perhaps best known for a controversial January 2002 memorandum to the president in which he argued that Geneva Convention proscriptions on torture did not apply to Taliban and al Qaeda prisoners, and that the conventions are, in fact, "obsolete."

Many reason that this memo, at least indirectly, led to the prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib.

What's more, the Bush administration's blithe dismissal of the Geneva Conventions has done more to damage the reputation of the United States than perhaps anything other than our ill-fated invasion of Iraq.

And Broder compares Alberto Gonzales to Harry Reid?

I think Katharine Graham just rolled over in her grave.

Hey David, I've got a little something for you...

Here's wishing DeLay would go away

I have been following politics for a quarter century, and I can't think of anyone who's a more detestable, vile human being than Tom DeLay. And he's really not worth any more time than that.

Someone in the video above, I think it was Tucker Carlson, mentioned that this DeLay rant was little more than a Mann Coulter moment. How true that is. Lest we forget, the soon-to-be jailbird has a book to sell, and he now must continuously ratchet up his rhetoric to get any press. He now is the one thing that all politicians and celebrities dread...

Totally irrelevant.

Bush's "invitation" to Dems a slap in the face

This is footage of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, responding to President Bush's churlish offer for Democrats to come to the White House to "negotiate" on the war funding bill. Reid's right - the president's "olive branch" to Congressional Democratic leadership is little more than another clumsy attempt to bully them.

I'm very happy that Democrats quickly responded with "thanks, but no thanks." It's clear to me that Democrats are willing to at least talk to the president and have a real dialogue; but President Bush is not.

This marks the first time in Bush's presidency that he cannot simply get what he wants by making a few calls up to Capitol Hill. Democrats are in charge now.

We'll see how this plays out, but here's my prediction: Bush would be wise to not bash Democrats too hard right now, because no matter who "wins" in this battle over the emergency supplemental bill, the troops are going to have begin coming home before the end of his presidency, because, let me shout it from the mountaintops -- there is no military victory possible in Iraq.

It stuns me that Republicans are in so much denial about that. Yesterday was just further evidence of the obvious - our many enemies in Iraq can strike at Americans and "friendlies" alike at will. If a suicide bomber can blow up the cafeteria in the Iraq Parliamentary building, in the heart of the Green Zone, they can strike anywhere.

One more thought on the funding bill - Bush and Congressional Republicans are taking a two-pronged approach in the PR effort to get their way.

First, they like to cry about the "pork" in the bill. I don't like extra spending any more than the next taxpayer. I'm sick to death of wasteful spending, and this bill is no exception. But, in that $20 billion number that Bush and Republicans like to throw around, there are some legitimate items that are more than worthy of funding: Veterans' benefits, which this administration has seen fit to give the shaft to since this war began and even prior to that; drought relief for Americas' farmers; and Hurricane Katrina relief.

Oh yea, remember New Orleans? Too many people in this administration don't, and it absolutely sickens me.

So, the "pork" argument is getting Bush nowhere. We can all read, Mr. President, despite your No Child Left Behind Act, but that's a topic for another time. Simply jumping up and down and crying "$20 billion in pork" isn't going to win you the day.

What's more, if Democrats took out every dollar of pork in this bill, Bush wouldn't sign it anyway, because it contains provisions for bringing our troops home.

I can't say it often enough - I'm sick to death of Republicans wanting an open-ended war. All we hear is "give General Petraeus and his plan time to work."

Mr. President, you've had four years for your various plans to work. All have been a miserable failures. Why should we believe you now, when you imply that this plan will somehow be the panacea for what ails Iraq?

The general feeling seems to be, "give us another couple of hundred billion," and by extension, another few thousand troops' lives. We can afford neither.

It's my sincere hope that Democrats don't cave on their demands for an end to this war. If they do, they'll do it at their political peril. Bush has already done years, if not decades, worth of damage to our foreign policy, military and economy, not to mention the thousands of lives that are forever changed or lost from our military casualties.

I really wonder how Bush sleeps at night.

Joe Leaverman?

Word around the campfire is that Connecticut Independent Senator Joe Lieberman (Above right, with John McCain), who has pledged to caucus (Congressional speak for "vote with") Democrats, is considering jumping ship and moving over to the Republican party.

Let him.

The last thing this party needs is another Zell Miller, a turncoat piece of garbage if there ever was one.

Yes, if the Democrats let Lieberman go, it will cost them control of the Senate, but in all honesty, I'd much rather see the Dems stick to their principles by not letting Joe dictate to them.

And besides, in another 18 months, we'll have another election, and by then, if the Democrats have done a decent job, the party will have a realistic shot at picking up more seats in the Senate - of the 33 Senate seats up for reelection in 2008, 21 are held by Republicans and 12 by Democrats. (See map above - Dark Blue is Democrats up for a reelection, dark red Republicans, and light red is retiring Republicans. Gray states have no one up for reelection.)

What's more, the Democrats hold such a slim majority right now, they don't have the votes to simply move forward with their agenda anyway. Sure, there would be disadvantages to sharing control with the Republicans if Joe moves to the GOP, which would necessitate the parties share power, but in the end, I don't want to see Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and the Democrats get dictated to by a myopic Democrat who still blindly supports this war.

Let the GOP have a cup o' Joe.

McCain's misguided Iraq proposal

Here's judas John McCain pontificating on how we are going to win or lose in Iraq in the next "several months" on Sunday's Meet the Press. What a truckload of crap. I'm sick and tired of hearing politicians say we can win in Iraq, all for political gain. There IS NO WINNING IN IRAQ, period, and the sooner our leaders realize it, the better. What, exactly, would constitute a victory? The terrorists laying down their arms and pledging not to kill any more Americans or Iraqis? That will never happen.

McCain is insane if he wants to send in more troops to that hell hole. An overwhelming majority of Americans oppose the move, and in this case, I think the opinion polls have a point. McCain correctly points out that you can't conduct foreign policy from opinion polls. I'd add "most of the time" to that phrase, though. And in this case, I'm afraid the American people are right.

What are more troops going to accomplish? More combat deaths. It's funny, as I listened to the whole episode of MTP, I was struck by the overtones of Vietnam in McCain's choice of words, i.e. - using phrases like "sweep and hold" and talking about the need for more troops. His reasoning, that chaos would spread in the area if we pulled out, is reminiscent of Vietnam; the Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon administrations all felt that if Vietnam fell to the communists, then all of Southeast Asia would fall to communism. This "domino effect" never happened, and we paid for that mistake in a tragic amount of American blood - over 58,000 war dead. I hope and pray that we don't ever make that same mistake again, but we may be on the verge of doing just that. I feel analogies to Vietnam have been wildly overdone in the press, but it seems like we get closer and closer every day to that analogy becoming all too real.

What really riled me was when Russert pressed McCain on why the American people should believe him, or believe that his strategy would work, the Senator replied that people should trust him because of his military background. Spoken sotto voce, McCain is implying that because he spent 5 1/2 years in the Hanoi Hilton, we should trust his foreign policy proposals? Sorry, I ain't buyin' it. I'm not Swiftboating McCain here - he's a hero and I can't even begin to imagine what he went through as a POW. But, that doesn't qualify him to set Iraq policy, or be president.

Just as an aside, where were the Democratic Senators on MTP on Sunday? I realize that Harry Reid, the soon-to-be Democratic Senate Majority Leader, was on Face the Nation, but I'm sure Tim Russert could have found someone from the Democratic side of the aisle. Joe Lieberman barely qualifies, since he's a self-identified "I.D.," as in "Independent Democrat," as he told Russert.

I wax and wane on whether I like Russert or not - it depends on the week, the guests, and the show, but most times he does a pretty effective job at taking politicians to task on their answers, especially when it differs from their past answers on the issues. One thing's for sure - Russert is always prepared, researched and ready to interview his guests, and most of the time, he's not afraid of the hard-hitting question, and that applies to Democrats and Republicans alike. Journalists of his ilk are in shockingly short supply these days.



Just a quick blast from the past. This is McCain on Meet the Press earlier this year, explaining that Jerry Falwell is NOT (emphasis mine) "an agent of intolerance." The Senator has a nice dodge at the end of this clip, too, when Russert asks him if he thinks Falwell is just that: "I think Jerry Falwell can explain his views on this program when you have him on."

I sure hope Democrats store away this video clip for the '08 campaign - this is shameless pandering to the far right for votes, and it sickens me. I won't even waste my time explaining why Falwell is so despicable, save for one example: following the 9-11 attacks, he opined that gays and abortion doctors were part of the reason the attacks happened.

Does that sound like intolerance to you?

Senator McCain, please run. Please.

He'll get torn to pieces, if the Democratic Nominee has any backbone.