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.

A letter to my U.S. Rep.: impeach Bush

Recently, Rep. Dennis Kucinich introduced a resolution on the House Floor to impeach President Bush. (He did the same regarding Dick Cheney last year.) This week, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (above), despite the impeachment resolutions moving to the House Judiciary Committee, Pelosi publicly stated that a vote on impeachment is "off the table." That is absolutely, 100 percent, the wrong move to make. I don't get it - so her decision about impeachment is made before the Judiciary Committee has reviewed the findings? Then why even have a Judiciary Committee at all? It's totally absurd.

Anyway, today I wrote a letter to my House Representative, Robert A. Brady, imploring him to support the impeachment resolution(s), and also to not support another term for Pelosi as Speaker (or, Heaven forbid, House Minority Leader) after the November elections. I urge all of you to write a letter to your Representative requesting these actions, too. You can find your Representative quick and easy by clicking Here. Feel free to copy/paste my letter for your use (but I would recommend fine-tuning it - legislators tend to ignore letters with a chain letter feel to them):

Dear Rep. Brady:
I fully support the resolution calling for the impeachment of President Bush, and you should, too. This administration has waged war, spied on citizens, skirted the law and trashed the Constitution. The reason Democrats regained control of both Houses of Congress in 2006 was to stop the war, and to stop President Bush's torching of the Constitution. Neither has happened, and I'm quite unhappy about it.

Please, support the resolution(s) to impeach President Bush. It's absurd and asinine that the resolutions would be sent to the Judiciary Committee, yet speaker Pelosi has publicly stated that a vote on impeachment is "off the table." Her leadership (or lack thereof) has failed our party and the American people. If Democrats remain in control of Congress in November, she should NOT be re-elected as Speaker.

I will be watching your votes on impeachment and also who is elected Speaker (or House minority leader) after the election. Please do the right thing.

Sincerely,

RJ

We have to demand that impeachment happen, because Democrats have shown so little willingness to do anything about the criminal misdeeds of the Bush administration. Please take a few minutes to write.

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.

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

Is NBC's Ann Curry siding with terrorists?

I woke up this morning to NBC's Ann Curry interviewing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on the Today Show. I'm wondering if NBC or Curry will come under similar fire for meeting with al-Assad like Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi did just over a month ago. Of course, Curry should not take heat for her lengthy interview with the Syrian president (nor will she), just like Pelosi should not have. But, the right-wing hate mongers won't come after Curry, because she's not the first female speaker of the house - Pelosi is.

What's more, word out of Washington is that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice may soon be meeting with Syrian and Iranian officials to discuss peace in the Middle East. I don't know if the rumors will prove to be true, but perhaps the Bush administration is finally learning a lesson they should have realized four or five years ago - to talk to your enemy isn't a weakness, and it's not making concessions - it's trying to resolve disputes, avert further violence, and maybe even (GASP!) realize peace in the world's most violent meat grinder known as the Middle East.

Pelosi on point about war funding

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is at her best in the clip above. Point-by-point, she takes Bush to task on vetoing the supplemental funding bill, and how this war cannot and should not be an open-ended commitment.

I blogged about this a few days ago - a blind person can see why this administration doesn't put the entire cost of the war in the general budget - there would be an open revolt by many Americans at this war's cost, and it would give voters a true snapshot of the ballooning deficit, which is spiraling out of control. Instead, the Bush administration just asks for money several times during the year. That ploy may have worked with the rubber-stamp GOP Congress, but it won't now.

As for time tables about when we should leave, even Bush's own secretary of defense is leaning in favor of them, but that doesn't stop chicken hawks Cheney and Bush from insisting on having things their way, which is to say, "We'll leave Iraq when we want to leave Iraq, and not before."

Pelosi continues: "The president wants a blank check, we will not give it to him."

I can't say it enough - right on, Madame Speaker. More importantly, I strongly urge all of you to write your Senators and House Representative and tell them not to cave to the president on the supplemental war funding bill. I haven't had the time to write impassioned letters to my legislators, but this weekend I'm going to be writing many letters, and of course I will share them with you. It's the end of the semester, and I just haven't had the time to write letters AND keep up with the blog.

One more quick thought on the video above...

Pelosi continues, "Next the president said that Congress is substituting our judgment for the judgments of commanders six-thousand-miles-away.

"Wrong again, Mr. President. We're substituting our judgment for your judgment 16 blocks down Pennsylvania Avenue."

This is one of the best speeches I've heard her give as speaker.

I just hope she can hold the Democratic caucus together and keep it from caving to Bush on funding this war.

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

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.

Newt gets called out... on FOX

Wow, maybe I had Chris Wallace wrong, or maybe Wallace woke up after his ridiculous interview with President Clinton last fall and realized that he needs to be a journalist, not a hack like the rest of the Fersatz News crew.

I give Wallace a lot of credit for calling out Gingrich on his own hypocrisy - it doesn't happen often enough. I will have a lot more tonight about Pelosi's trip to Syria. I've been gathering lots of stuff about her trip to the Middle East, and I wanted to wait until the dust settled before commenting.

It really is amazing what people will say and do when trying to discredit her. In the process, they merely discredit themselves.

Anyway, much more on Pelosi later.

Pelosi to W: cool your heels

I got a pretty big kick out of this one the other day. It's Nancy Pelosi telling President Bush to "take a breath," which was her nice way of saying "calm the !@#$%#!! down, Mr. President."

As liberal talk show host Stephanie Miller so succinctly put it yesterday, it was as if Pelosi was talking to one of her many grandchildren...

"Mr. President, sit down! Now who wants a juice box?"

(I'm still laughing, but I can't deliver it 1/8 as funny as it was on her show - which is on Sirius 146 Talk Left from 6-9 every weeknight, by the way)

Miller is great, and her show is funny, witty, entertaining and informing.

Maybe Bush needs to breathe deep, like Gore did during the 2000 presidential debates. Yea, that sounds about right - Bush needs to be more like Gore.

Katie BOORic out of line with Edwardses

I haven't been this angry about a 60 Minutes piece since Leslie Stahl interviewed Nancy Pelosi about a week before the 2006 election and focused on her clothes and appearance with superficial, irrelevant and insulting questions and comments. However, Couric trumped that disgrace ten-fold with her interview of John and Elizabeth Edwards on Sunday night.

One of the things that annoyed me most about this interview was Couric's use of the Fersatz News Channel's well known tactic of beginning questions with "some would say" and "many are saying." That's just euphemism for "I think you should be home, Elizabeth" or "Are you sure you want to continue the campaign?" or "Should you be doing this?"

I guess I sound like a paranoid, whining Republican, many of whom have made calling the media "liberal" a cliché.

Before I take off on a serious rant, I understand that Katie Couric has a fair amount of expertise and personal experience with cancer. I'm certainly not without sympathy or empathy for all that she's endured as a wife and mother after her husband Jay Monahan passed away from colon cancer in 1998. She also lost her sister, Emily, to pancreatic cancer in 2001. And, from all that I've seen and read, she's been a wonderful mom to her children, especially in light of them losing their father at such a tragically young age.

Couric also deserves unequivocal praise for her work on behalf of cancer. She's had a mammogram and also a colonoscopy on the air while hosting NBC's Today Show. She's brought a lot of visibility, attention and awareness to cancer.

Aside from all of that, though, I still don't see how that gave her the right to be a bulldog to John and Elizabeth Edwards like she did on Sunday night.

Couric falls just short of openly criticizing Elizabeth Edwards for not being at home with her kids. From what I've read, Couric didn't leave her job for any length of time at The Today Show when her husband was diagnosed with cancer. It's a wonder what nannies can do, huh Katie? Why should the Edwardses be held to a different standard, because they both committed to public service? They shouldn't.

I wonder how Couric would have felt if a reporter asked her similar questions when her husband was diagnosed with colon cancer. Picture reporters sticking microphones in her face, asking her all sorts of questions about why she wasn't home with her husband and children. She would have resented it, and rightfully so.

What's more, John and Elizabeth Edwards are certainly setting out to do more by serving their country as opposed to doing a morning show with Matt Lauer for 15 years. I see footage like this, and it's little wonder Couric's CBS Evening News is tanking.

What irked me most was how Couric openly questioned whether Edwards could run the country while distracted [with Elizabeth's illness]. Couric might want to pick up a history book.

Here are just a few off the top of my head...

If Elizabeth Edwards' health is such a concern, how about Dick Cheney's? He was recently hospitalized for blood clots in his leg, and he has a history of heart attacks and coronary problems. Let's not forget that Cheney is without a doubt the most powerful vice president in modern times, maybe ever. And he's one tragedy away from the presidency.

Where's Couric with a question about Cheney's health? Keeping up with all of the scandals that are plaguing Dick's administration has got to be taking a toll on his health, so maybe it should be a concern.

President Reagan had three major operations while in office, including an operation for colon cancer. Yes, there were stories in the press about it, but not the kind of media attention that Elizabeth Edwards is getting. Funny how the press didn't question whether he should remain as president or not.

President Nixon had a very serious phlebitis that could have killed him while he was president, but admittedly those health problems occurred late in his presidency, when the nation's attention was on Watergate.

Presidents Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and Lyndon Johnson had a record of serious health problems before and during their presidencies, and none, save FDR, affected the presidency. In FDR's case, he was clearly dying even before the election of 1944, but the nation was reluctant to change leaders during World War II, and his health was hid from the nation during that election.

But, the cases above were pre-Watergate, after which just about anything has been fair game to report in the media.

Having said all of that, it's absurd and insulting to believe that John Edwards could not effectively function as a leader while dealing with his wife's illness if he were to win the 2008 election.

If anyone's health should be speculated on and raised as an issue in this campaign, it's John McCain's. He's been treated for recurrent skin cancer, including melanoma, in 1993, 2000, and 2002. What's more, he will turn 72 in 2009, the year he would take the oath of office if he wins the 2008 presidential election. I'm not saying McCain's health should be an issue in this campaign, but it most certainly should be more of an issue than Elizabeth Edwards'.

To his credit, since his interview with his wife on 60 Minutes, John Edwards has come out and publicly stated he didn't have a problem with the questions. But, keep in mind he's running for office, and he wants to demonstrate that he can handle the tough questions.

The Couric interview was inexcusable - CBS should have known better.

My thoughts on troop funding

I've updated this post - take a look at the 5th video down - the one with Donald Rumsfeld. I posted the wrong one yesterday. This new one isn't quite as good resolution wise, but it's much longer, and you get to hear Rummy tripping over his arrogance when trying to answer the soldiers' questions as he's put on the spot. When you hear the audio, you'll know it doesn't make a difference.



Lots and lots of rhetoric is flowing out of Washington, D.C., about funding and supporting the troops.

Perhaps no one is more eloquent on this subject than Patrick Murphy, a freshmen Democrat from Pennsylvania's 8th District (my old district!). He beat incumbent Republican Mark Fitzpatrick in a bitterly contested and very close election last November - the final vote count was 125,656 to 124,138. You can bet that the Republicans will go after Murphy three times as hard in '08. If we are still living in Pennsylvania next year when the election rolls around (heaven forbid), I'm campaigning for this guy, and contributing, too. He's a wonderful guy, an Iraq war veteran, and a true American patriot. Here's my favorite passage of Murphy's from the video clip above:

To those on the other side of the aisle who are opposed, I want to ask you the same questions that my gunner asked me when I was leading a convoy up and down Ambush Alley one day. He said, "Sir, what are we doing over here? What's our mission? When are these Iraqis going to come off the sidelines and fight for their own country?" So to my colleagues across the aisle - your taunts about supporting our troops ring hollow if you are still unable to answer those questions now four years later.

Pretty tough words from a man who has earned the right to say them. However, something tells me Republicans will figure out a way to try and smear him. If Max Cleland and John Kerry can get smeared, Murphy can to. Watch your back, Patrick. Better yet, Pennsylvania Democrats will have your back, and you can count me among them.



Speaking of men who have earned the right to talk tough about the War in Iraq...

Jack Murtha (D-Pa.), a former Marine who knows what it's like to wear the uniform, also had some pretty harsh words for the president after the House passed the spending bill which set a withdraw date for our troops.

Murtha at times can be a loose canon, but he's right on here. I flat out love the guy - he's courageous, respected in the military community, and he backs up his tough talk with action. Most importantly, he's got something Dick and Bush can only dream of ever having - credibility on military matters.



But, President Bush was at his bullshitting best following the passage of the House Bill that sets a deadline for the troops to come home.

Let's set the table, shall we? Because there's lots to feast on in this 4:17 meal.

I love how the president never misses an opportunity for a photo-op when it suits him politically, like here, with soldiers and vets lined up behind him. But, did anyone catch the news a few weeks ago that an amputee from the Iraq War was uninvited to a ceremony at the White House because he refused to wear pants instead of shorts? You probably didn't, because it didn't get a whole lot of press. Apparently, we have a president who doesn't like to see the real costs of war, in this case an amputee veteran, unless you count going to the one Marriott-like ward at Walter Reed to meet with a few of our wounded.

Bush wastes no time working in the empty "Support Our Troops" line - which should be to no one's surprise. Too bad Bush wouldn't know the meaning of the phrase if it hit him in the face - lack of adequate body armor, too few troops, mandating stop-loss for troops due to leave the military, ridiculous and appalling conditions for our returning wounded, Bush's proposal to cut health care in his latest budget sent to Congress, the list goes on and on. About the only thing this president does do to support the troops - coming up with slogans the press eats up like a cannoli in South Philly. And "Getting our troops the resources they need to do their job" is another line from the video clip above that's fit for Comedy Central.

But, don't take my word for it - I'm just a blogger who's sick of all the GOP's rhetoric. How about we hear from some people who are out on the front lines, putting their lives on the line each and every day, regardless of the idiocy of this war. Let's roll some tape, shall we?



Pathetic, sad and outrageous that any U.S. soldier would ever, ever have reason to say this on film. Want another example of this administration not giving soldiers the resources they need? Mission Accomplished!...



What an amazing piece of footage. Keith Olbermann is right on the mark - this type of candor from any leader is extraordinarily rare in wartime, so for that I'll at least give Rumsfeld a nanogram of credit.

Most importantly, though, is the fact that these are issues that are raised by troops in the field, so this footage is bulletproof, unlike the armor issued to our military for troops and Hummers. No word yet on whether Dick Cheney has questioned the soldiers' patriotism or if Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity have whined that the soldiers asking Rummy those questions "hate America."

Rummy's whopper "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had" is a line that will live on in infamy. That might be true when you are attacked, like when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, but that doesn't hold up for two seconds when referring to the War in Iraq.

Other than that, Rummy's comments defy description. Words fail me to describe the absurdity of his responses. His pathetic answer about production problems as the reason why our troops didn't have the resources they needed at the time (and it still holds true) is probably his biggest lie and distortion during his six years as secretary of defense. To its credit, the press was all over that one, exposing it for the lie that it truly was. I even remember representative from the company that makes body armor being interviewed, and he explained that they had the capacity to make twice as much as they were delivering to the military.

Yes, yes, Rummy's gone, but you know what? These clips are highly indicative of how seriously this administration has taken "supporting the troops" during the four years of the Iraq War (three and a half of which Rummy was the secretary of defense). How dare the Republicans say that Democrats "don't support the troops"! It makes my blood boil. The best way for Democrats to support them is to bring them home, since this administration, and the generals taking marching orders from these people, have not done the job, or have not had the tools to do the job.

This administration has zero credibility, except with the most partisan and ideologically driven voters and Republican hacks. I say this not out of joy (and that's the God's honest truth - believe it if you will) - I say it out of disgust for our troops who continue to come home maimed physically or mentally, or in body bags.

One last thing that really gets my Irish up. Whenever people such as Patrick Murphy, Jack Murtha or Nancy Pelosi propose that we put limitations on additional troops being sent in the field by making sure they are adequately trained and properly equipped, they were venomously attacked by the Bush Administration once more. Can anyone possibly explain what's wrong with that? Nothing, but this administration's only possible response to those who suggested it was to attack the messenger, not the message.

Back to Bush's message above...

If true, (and I'm sure it probably is, to a certain extent) Democrats deserve some criticism for tacking on stuff to a bill that have nothing to do with winning the War on Terrorism. But, that criticism coming from Bush is outright hilarious, since he has made spending an art form. Bush has yet to veto one spending bill during his entire administration, so his whining about Congressional pork rings very hollow.

And the act of tacking stuff onto a bill so the opposing party will vote it down is done by both sides - Republicans did this time and time again during their rule in Congress over the last 12 years. One instance of note came during the creation of the Department of Homeland Security - Repubes tried to take away government workers' right to collective bargaining, knowing full well that Democrats would oppose such a move. When Democrats did, they weren't "concerned with winning the war on terrorism."

Bottom line - Bush doesn't like having to work and negotiate with Democrats, since he never to and showed no propensity for wanting to during his first six years in office. Now, he has no choice. But, my prediction, hardly a revelation, is that he will get out his veto pen instead of trying to come up with solutions, all the while decrying Democrats' "obstructionism."

In a way, the House bill annoys me though - because it gives Bush and his devoted sheep a bit of ammunition. Just watch the tape above - about two minutes in, he's whining about how this bill is depriving the troops of resources just as we are turning the corner (I'm paraphrasing). So many people will listen to that garbage and believe it.

By the way, our arrogant president persists in saying that if Congress cuts off funding, he still won't be forced to accept restrictions and timetables for withdraw? I know even he doesn't believe that. If Congress is successful in cutting off the purse strings, the troops are coming home, and Bush would have little say in the matter. We're far from that happening right now, but this legislative fight is far from over.

I'll end with one more example of this administration's giving our troops old, outdated equipment to do the job in Iraq. This is a campaign ad that was used against former Virginia Senator George Allen last year in his race with Democrat and eventual winner Jim Webb. Take a look...



Now that's supporting the troops!

Sleep tight, Mr. President.

Hannity & Coulter - perfect together

Well, if Coulter doesn't make it as a hate monger, there's always comedy.

The more Hannity and Coulter try to smear Pelosi, the more hilarious they are.

Debunking Pelosi putdown and smear

Coming at you fast and furious today. Hey, it's not my fault there's a lot to type about. I'll probably go deep into the night, too. I've got a lot on my mind, and this is my outlet.

Anyway, I saw this news tidbit last week, and it really irked me. Seems that Opie Cunningham*, a Republican Congressman from Florida (below left as he is today; below right as Opie on The Andy Griffith Show. He later played Richie on Happy Days), was neck deep in the ridiculous Nancy Pelosi "story" about how she "demanded" a larger plane than her predecessor as Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert.

The story was revealed by many to be complete b.s., but that didn't stop many Republicans from letting facts get in the way of a good 'ole fashioned smear.

Opie (real name: Adam Putnam), chairman of the House Republican Conference Committee, is one of the guys who ran with, and pushed, the phony Nancy Pelosi plane request story. Last week, as reported on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann and reported in the Tampa Tribune newspaper, Putnam admitted to the paper that he not only doesn't know if the story is true... he doesn't care.

He reportedly read it in the Washington Times, notorious right-wing rag owned by Rev. Sun Myung Moon, a creepy man who has very strong ties to the Republican Party. (For kicks, do some reading about Moon sometime.)

This is precisely the kind of smears, accusations and reporting you can expect for the next 18 months, people. I had hoped that the Republicans were done with this type of crap, and that their smear games would be over. Fat chance.

Looks like the next generation of Republicans are picking up right where DeLay and Hastert left off: smears, fears, jeers and queers. (Sorry ~ stem cell research, abortion, banning flag burning, and a $600 billion price tag for an immoral war don't rhyme.)

* - I know that Opie's last name was Taylor and Richie's was Cunningham. It's a joke.

Dick Dick Dick Dick Dick Dick Dick Dick... DICK!

"How many dicks is that?"

"A lot."

(You win the Friday gold star if you know what movie that's from. Answer at the bottom of this post ~ no cheating! Take a guess first.)

Our terror-in-chief is at it again. During a visit to Japan, Cheney had this to say about Nancy Pelosi and other DemocratIC leaders' stated desire to withdraw our forces from Iraq:

If we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we'll do is validate the Al Qaeda strategy. The Al Qaeda strategy is to break the will of the American people. In fact, knowing they can't win in a stand-up fight, try to convince us to throw in the towel and come home and they they win because we quit?

Spoken like a man who successfully dodged the draft in the 1960s and who has never realized the true cost of war. Hey, I don't know it, either, but as an unapologetic liberal, I can tell you that my stance on war is that it's the absolute last resort, not the first, second, third or even 10th option. I would go out of my way, if I were president, to prevent war, not start one. Too bad this administration didn't have that point of view prior to invading Iraq.

Anyway, this is an old page from Dick's playbook - he's been doing it for years. If opponents disagree with you, they are siding with our enemy and helping them to win. The other time I vividly recall Dick using this tactic was in the months after September 11, when opponents had the audacity to question a few of the many controversial laws that were rammed through Congress by this administration. In one particular instance, when some questioned the USA PATRIOT Act, there was Cheney on television, saying opponents "sided with the terrorists."

One thing is clear -- we are yet to see the depths of depravity this man will go to over a political disagreement. There is virtually nothing Cheney could do or say that would surprise me anymore. We all know he has a bad heart, but I say he has no heart. He's a gutless turd. A coward. An attack dog. A strict ideologue. And most of all, he's not a real man, because real men don't belittle political opponents by saying they side with an organization that killed 3,000 Americans and injured scores more. We deserve better from our vice president; we deserve one who's willing to leave that kind of hateful rhetoric to the intellectual calisthenics of Michael Savage.

What's more, when offered a chance to apologize earlier today, Cheney dismissed that with an acid tongue, like he does most things.

"If you're going to advocate a course of action that basically is withdrawal of our forces from Iraq, then you don't get to just do the fun part of that, that says, 'We'll, we're going to get out,' and appeal to your constituents on that basis," Cheney said from Australia.

Responding during an interview today in Sydney with ABC News, Cheney said, "I'm not sure what part of it is that Nancy disagreed with. She accused me of questioning her patriotism. I didn't question her patriotism. I questioned her judgment.

"You also have to be accountable for the results," he continued. "What are the consequences of that? What happens if we withdraw from Iraq? And the point I made and I'll make it again is that Al Qaida functions on the basis that they think they can break our will. That's their fundamental underlying strategy, that if they can kill enough Americans or cause enough havoc, create enough chaos in Iraq, then we'll quit and go home. And my statement was that if we adopt the Pelosi policy, that then we will validate the strategy of Al Qaida. I said it and I meant it."

When given the opportunity to distance himself from remarks he made about Pelosi, Cheney replied, "I'm not backing down."

To her credit, Pelosi didn't take the bait, refusing to slam Cheney or take any pot shots of her own. Following Dick's initial remarks, Pelosi publicly stated, "I hope the president will repudiate and distance himself from the vice president's remarks." She called the White House, and as close as she got to Bush was a conversation with White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten.

Thus far, President Bush has been mum on Dick's remarks, which should surprise no one. Dick is W's attack dog - the president is wise enough to know that he could never get away with saying such things, but he knows that Cheney is more than willing to take shots at Pelosi and other DemocratIC leaders, and do it publicly. If Dick keeps this up (and he's showing no signs he won't), I'm going to start calling him Spiro T. Cheney.

Not only will President Bush give Dick a high five the next time he sees him, but I'm sure that Australian Prime Minister John Howard did the same thing when Dick arrived. You might remember Howard making remarks similar to Cheney's a few weeks ago, but about Barack Obama.

Quite naturally, Dick's visit Down Under was met with plenty of protests. A few pics...

Above, an Australian protester draped in an American flag drags a carcass behind her in protest of Cheney's visit and the War in Iraq. I don't find images like these at all pleasant, but they are an indication of how we are perceived around the world. It seems wherever the president or vice president go, they are met with skepticism at best, outright hostility at worst.

Above, protesters outside of Cheney's hotel. However, the news wasn't all bad for the vice president...

What's this? Members of the Republican National Committee made the trip with Cheney? Just kidding.

Of course, I vehemently disagree with the sign's opinion, but to me it's newsworthy because it's a site seldom seen when our leaders travel abroad these days.

Cheney's Pelosi remark wasn't his only doozie during his trip, but that's a separate post (about Great Britian's withdraw).

Anyway, keep up the hateful work, Mr. Vice President.

Photos from AP
Information for this story was taken from AP & ABC News
The headline refers to Reservoir Dogs, a 1996 gangster film for the ages

GOP strafes Pelosi regarding plane

I got a pretty big kick out of the non-story story from this past week - how Nancy Pelosi was requesting an enormous airplane for her trips to and from California. I have to give credit to the press, for the most part, about this story though (but not in all cases).

A few Republicans, most notably staff at the Republican National Committee, tried to make political hay out of Nancy Pelosi's request for an airplane for trips to her home state of California and back. What many of Pelosi's detractors conveniently forgot was that former Speaker Dennis Hastert also had access to a plane to his home state of Illinois.

Each and every Speaker of the House should have secure, sufficient protection, which should include a secure aircraft, and it doesn't matter who the speaker is, or from what party.

This policy began following 9-11, since the speaker is third in line to the presidency, and I'm happy that policy is in place.

However, a report on the CBS Evening News by Sharyl Attkisson this past week stated: "The fuss is over whether Pelosi should fly on the same small jet used by her predecessor Dennis Hastert ... or the much bigger military 757."

However, Attkisson's report neglected to mention that the White House and the House Sergeant at Arms both defended Pelosi's need for a plane that can fly nonstop to and from her district on security grounds, if such a plane with that capability is available.

Here's a press release from the House Sergeant at Arms, as reported in Talking Points Memo:

February 8, 2007

As the Sergeant at Arms, I have the responsibility to ensure the security of the members of the House of Representatives, to include the Speaker of the House. The Speaker requires additional precautions due to her responsibilities as the leader of the House and her Constitutional position as second in the line of succession to the presidency.

In a post 9/11 threat environment, it is reasonable and prudent to provide military aircraft to the Speaker for official travel between Washington and her district. The practice began with Speaker Hastert and I have recommended that it continue with Speaker Pelosi. The fact that Speaker Pelosi lives in California compelled me to request an aircraft that is capable of making non-stop flights for security purposes, unless such an aircraft is unavailable. This will ensure communications capabilities and also enhance security. I made the recommendation to use military aircraft based upon the need to provide necessary levels of security for ranking national leaders, such as the Speaker. I regret that an issue that is exclusively considered and decided in a security context has evolved into a political issue.

That's not all. White House Press Secretary Tony Snow also thought the whole issue was a non-issue, too stating:

[The White House] position, which is, as Speaker of the House, she is entitled to military transport, and that the arrangements, the proper arrangements are being made between the Sergeant of Arms office in the House of Representatives and the U.S. Department of Defense. We think it's appropriate, and so, again, I think this is much ado about not a whole lot. It is important for the Speaker to have this kind of protection and travel. It was certainly appropriate for Speaker Hastert. So we trust that all sides will get this worked out.

On Thursday of last week, Tony Snow came right out and said that he thought the whole story was "unfair to the speaker."

That didn't stop some from coming after Pelosi anyway, facts be damned.

The Republican National Committee, while Tony Snow was defending Pelosi, issued a press release with this heading:

I won't even get into the details of the press release, which I have read, but I'm sure you can guess.

As Media Matters reported:

A February 9 Washington Times article by Rowan Scarborough and Charles Hurt flatly stated that the C-20, one of the military planes used by former House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) for domestic travel when he was speaker, "can make the nonstop flight year-round" to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D) California district from Washington, D.C. But media reports from the previous two days had reported that the C-20 cannot make it to California nonstop under all conditions. The article by Scarborough and Hurt did not attribute its contrary assertion about the flying range of the C-20 to anyone.

Capt. Herb McConnell, the spokesman for the 89th Airlift wing at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, was quoted by ABC News two days earlier saying that the C-20 is "able to make a coast-to-coast flight at times during the year, but not when there are strong headwinds such as during the winter." Also, on February 8, the Los Angeles Times reported that the aircraft used by Hastert "require[d] ideal weather conditions to make the cross-country trip without stopping to refuel."

Of course, my favorite Republican Strategist and Pollster, Frank Luntz, weighed in on Sean Insanity's show with his own ill-informed propaganda, first, with this:

LUNTZ: And let me tell you, Sean, this situation with Nancy Pelosi and the aircraft -- that's going to play very badly for the Democrats, and I think that's going to reflect badly on Hillary Clinton who, at this point, is the front-runner.

Later in the same show, this exchange, and it's amazing that Alan Colmes actually grew a set, for once:

COLMES: Frank, you took a shot at Nancy Pelosi. The fact of the matter is: She did not initiate this. It came from the sergeant of arms. Conservatives are making a bigger deal of this than really exists. And we got very little press when there was a Denny Hastert issue when he asked for the same thing. So, you say it's going to resonate and be -- and hurt the front-runner for the Democrats. I disagree. I -- where are you getting this information?

LUNTZ: Well -- no, here's the issue. The public said "no" to the Republican Party in 2006 because they thought that they'd gone native -- that they'd gone Washington -- that there wasn't a sense of accountability. But they will say the same "no" to the Democrats if they seem to be -- abuse their power. And she doesn't need a huge, gigantic plane.

COLMES: She didn't ask for one. She just wants a nonstop --

LUNTZ: If she wants to deny everybody else from flying -- you know what?

COLMES: -- doesn't want to have to refuel. It's a security issue whether or not she should stop to refuel.

LUNTZ: She does -- it is not a -- it is not a security issue. She doesn't need a plane, and American taxpayers -- I can promise you, Alan -- the American taxpayers don't want to be paying for her private flights in huge jets.

COLMES: But it's not her decision, it's the sergeant at arms. She doesn't make that decision, Frank.

SEAN HANNITY (co-host): All right, we gotta run.

LUNTZ: She can say no. She can say no.

MICHAEL BROWN (Democratic strategist): The American taxpayers do not want to pay for a war they don't agree with --

HANNITY: She was offered the plane.

LUNTZ: Just say no, Alan.

HANNITY: She -- he's asking for the bigger plane. She, herself is asking --

COLMES: She didn't make that decision.


HANNITY: -- and it would be $300,000 round trip for the American taxpayer.

COLMES: It was not her decision.

LUNTZ: Exactly.

HANNITY: This is a bad political play, Frank. Frank, I agree with you.

##

Luntz has a long history of disparaging Pelosi, saying on Insanity's show last year, "I always use the line for Nancy Pelosi, 'You get one shot at a face lift. If it doesn't work the first time, let it go.'"

First of all, as someone who looks like Howdy Doody (left), Luntz (below, right) has preciously little room for criticizing Pelosi's appearance. Secondly, Luntz should grow up - leave the elementary put-downs to bloggers and such - you're supposed to be a professional. Wait, you consistently appear on Faux News - so much for being a professional. Okay, this IS the sort of thing we should expect from you. Forget everything I just said - keep meeting our lowered expectations of you, Luntz.

I know I'm writing and bringing a lot to you about this, but it's just one example of how the radical Republican press forges ahead, facts be damned.

Give Pelosi her damned plane, like every speaker deserves, and get on with the business of running the country and making our lives better. Republicans seem pretty angry that Democrats so far have made some progress, so we get this pseudo scandal about an airplane.

Bush: Politics is Hard

If I hear the president say one more time how "his job is hard" or that "politics is hard," I'm going to either laugh, cry, or scream at the television. Aww, President Hubris has fallen on hard times. Well boo-freakin'-hoo!

If he's looking for sympathy, he's not likely to get it from many of the American people, Democrats, and definitely not me (but I'm sure that last one is keeping him up at night). Bush has arrogantly blazed his way through American politics, had his way with his party in power for the vast majority of his presidency, and he's had no one holding him, or his party, accountable.

Voters had something to say about that. It's amazing what four months can do to a president's outlook. And it's a good thing for America. It's why our forefathers gave our political system checks and balances. Now Bush gets to feel a little political heat. And it started this past weekend, when Bush met with House Democrats (above) for the first time since February 2001. It didn't take long for the quotable quotes to spring forth. ...

"Politics is hard,'' said Bush, after addressing House Democrats at a retreat in Williamsburg, Virginia last Saturday. "It's hard because of the campaign. It's hard, in many cases, because of the travel. These are hard times because of the big issues we face.''

You know what's hard, Mr. President? Middle-class people like me getting squeezed, screwed and taken behind the woodshed each and every day of your presidency. Or the many families without loved ones who are fighting your misguided War in Iraq. Or paying down the $3 trillion in debt that the United States is now in, because of your tax cuts, the overwhelming majority of which went to the rich.

Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, was largely deferential and diplomatic after Bush's talk. "Still has the touch,'' said Pelosi about Bush, in reference to his appearance and some of the baby hugging.

Bush, during his remarks, also reminded Democrats that "Politics can be ugly,'' too. You don't say, Mr. President? You and your Rasputin, Karl Rove, have both played a pretty big role in making politics ugly during your two presidential campaigns. Democrats aren't blameless, nor do I mean to imply that they are. But, since 1992, I don't think it's a stretch to say that it's Republicans like Bush and Rove who have sought to divide, conquer and enrage Americans against each other, all in the purpose of obtaining or retaining power. I won't go through a laundry list, but if you've been even a passive follower of American politics, the list is pretty easy to fill out, from the Lewinsky scandal, the War on Terror, tax cuts, gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research, the War in Iraq, the 2000 election, voter suppression, etc.

"Look, we we don't always agree -- and that's why we're in different parties,'' Bush said. "But we do agree about our country, and we do agree about the desire to work together.'' Left out of that remark was the he only took on his agreement to "work together" after his party got its collective butt kicked in November.

Yet, when his own intelligence people are doubting the will and ability of Iraqi leaders to gain control over sectarian violence in Iraq, Bush emerged from his appearance before Democrats to the news of another violent episode in Iraq - a bombing that killed more than 120 people (more on that in a post later tonight).

He left the dirty work to his press secretary, Tony Snow, who issued this statement: "Another atrocity in Baghdad today has targeted the innocent people of Iraq. Free nations of the world must not stand by while terrorists commit mass murder in an attempt to derail democratic progress in Iraq and throughout the greater Middle East.''

Inside, Bush answered five or six questions, shaken hands with many Democrats and even hugged a few babies. "I kind of remembered -- help me remember the good old days,'' said Bush.

"Still has the touch,'' Pelosi said after Bush's remarks.

"Well, I don't know,'' Bush said. "One of the babies I got to hug was the speaker's grandchild.''

According to AP, Bush sounded familiar themes during his speech to Democrats, speaking about education and immigration reform and energy independence. In other words, it was State or the Union reheated. Delish!

Here's an excerpt of Bush's speech, and I've added the White House's notations of applause and laughter, for your laughter:

Thank you all. It's nice to be here. Thank you very much. The last time I looked at some of your faces, I was at the State of the Union, and I saw kind of a strange expression when I referred to something as the Democrat Party. Now, look, my diction isn't all that good.

(Laughter)

I have been accused of occasionally mangling the English language.

(Laughter)

And so I appreciate you inviting the head of the Republic Party.

(Laughter and applause)

Politics can be ugly. Sometimes they say not nice things about you in the local newspaper.

You're traveling a lot. Campaigns are rough on a family. And so I really want to thank -- I thank the members for serving, but I know full well that you couldn't serve without the love and support of your family members. So I really appreciate your contribution to the country.

Madam Speaker, thank you very much for your leadership. I was genuinely touched when I thought about how your dad would be reacting to seeing you sitting up there in the House chamber. It was an [sic] historic moment, and I know you're proud of the accomplishments, and I appreciate you all supporting this fine woman into a really important leadership role.

(Applause)

We share a common goal, and that is to keep America safe,'' Bush said. "You know, I welcome debate in a time of war, and I hope you know that. Nor do I consider anybody's -- nor do I consider a belief that if you don't happen to agree with me you don't share the same sense of patriotism I do. You can get that thought out of your mind, if that's what some believe.

(Applause.)

These are tough times, and yet there's no doubt in my mind that you want to secure this homeland just as much as I do. You remember the lessons of September the 11th just like I do. And you understand a fundamental obligation of government is to do everything in our power to protect people here. And I'm looking forward to working with you on that, to make sure our intelligence agencies have what they need to be able to detect problems before they come, to continue to secure the homeland. I believe we can work together in Afghanistan, to make sure that former safe haven is able to grow as a democracy.

(Applause.)

I put out a plan that has caused a lot of debate on Iraq. I took a lot of time thinking about how best to achieve an objective of a country governing and sustaining and defending itself, a country that will be an ally in this war on terror. I listened to many members here. I listened to members of my own party. I listened to the military, and came up with a plan that I genuinely believe has the best chance of succeeding.

I do know we agree on some things, and that is that the Maliki government is going to have to show strong leadership.

(Applause.)

I appreciate the fact that the Speaker and many of -- the distinguished chairman came and briefed me on their trip. She said loud and clear, Mr. President, you've got to make it clear to the Iraqi people that their government has got to perform. And I understand that. I agree, Madam Speaker.

There's got to be success not only on the military front -- in other words, the Iraqis have got to be taking the lead in Baghdad to secure its capital, but there's also got to be success on the political front. They've got to pass an oil law. They've got to amend their constitution so that all segments of that society feel that the government is for them.

(Applause.)

We've got to spend our money on reconstruction projects that help unite the country. They've got to have local elections so people feel involved in the provincial governments. In other words, there's benchmarks that they have got to achieve. And I have made it clear to the Iraqi government, just like I made it clear to the American people, our commitment is not open ended.

(Applause.)

Thank you for having me.

###

I give Bush (above, walking away after shaking Pelosi's hand - a funny photo, no?) courage for appearing, but, as I've written many times since the election, what choice does he have? His party's out of power now, so the cloak of arrogance has wilted and fallen off. I can't contain my glee that he now has to work with the very same people he's never missed a chance denigrating since he's been in office.

Outside, protesters had a few choice words, signs and scenery for Bush, too, and they weren't nearly as diplomatic as the Democrats were inside.

At left, protester Megan Wynn yells at Bush's motorcade as it rolls on for Bush's appearance before House Democrats last Saturday. (AP Photo/Rob Ostermaier)

At right, Zoe Lory wears a President Bush mask at a protest outside the Kingsmill Resort in Williamsburg, Va., Saturday, Feb 3, 2007, where Bush addressed about 200 lawmakers during a Democratic retreat. (AP Photo/The Daily Press, Rob Ostermaier)

Anyway, I just thought I'd share my thoughts on the president's "Woe is Me" speech to Democrats. I've got to give him credit - it takes a lot of moxie to say what he said to a group of people that he and Karl Rove have spent the last 6+ years attacking and slamming. It's the ultimate, delicious political irony that Bush now has to work with them if he wants to accomplish anything, thereby securing what every soon-to-be-ex-president is worried about - his legacy.

Some information for this post was taken from the Associated Press, as well as the White House homepage. All photos from AP.

Another example of our LIBERAL media

I have to confess, I got this from Crooks and Liars, an awesome Website where I find many issues that I blog about. So, I'm cribbing a lot from C&L about this post, so I wanted to give proper attribution. Here goes...

A Reuters story that appeared on Yahoo's Website last Friday carried this headline:

Bomb kills 15, Bush critic Pelosi visits Baghdad

Really? You've got to be kidding me. It's bad enough that the news stories about Pelosi have ranged from blatantly male chauvinist "Pelosi, dressed in Armani..." to the completely irrelevant (too many to list here), but this could be one of the worst headlines I've ever seen on the Web for a news story.

As Crooks & Liars rightfully points out, someone couldn't even write "California Congresswoman"? Or, here's a radical idea -- how about "Speaker Pelosi"?!?

Can anyone imagine, when Newt Gingrich was speaker, if this headline appeared? -- "Clinton hater Gingrich slams health care plan."

Imagine the outrage that would have followed that one. Bill O'Lielly would have declared a War on Irresponsible Journalism.

Hey conservatives, keep complaining about the liberal media. And when you get a chance, drop by Earth and let us know how the weather is in your parallel universe.

Olbermann on media coverage of Dems

I had to include a quick clip of Keith Olbermann this morning, talking about media coverage about the Democrats' selection of Steny Hoyer late last week. Again, I'm repeating myself, but you'd think the Democrats were having a fight to the death. Absurd.