Silvio Berlusconi is one funny guy

Just in case you missed it, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi was at the White House yesterday, and during a dinner address, Berlusconi addressed Bush as "one of the greatest American presidents," and as he stepped toward him, he bumped the podium and it completely fell apart. (Wonder if it was made in China?)

Anyway, the footage above is in Italian, but you don't need to even understand the language - it's just funny to watch. I love how Berlusconi holds the top of the podium with the mic and just talks into it. Too funny.

Stewart takes on Bush's demagoguery

President Bush's fear mongering has been in full force this week, and it's been sickening to watch and listen to. Thank God there are a few elements of our corporate media who are even bothering to do some cursory reporting concerning the Bush administration's outrageous demand for $700 billion in taxpayer money to bail out greedy Wall St. CEOs, without fixing the systemic problems that are plaguing our financial and banking systems.

I have to admit, I'm quite happy that there hasn't yet been an agreement on a bailout (and I'm not calling it a rescue plan, despite how the corporate conservative blowhards on Faux News want to frame it).

Yet, that hasn't stopped Bush from trying to make one of the largest money and power grabs in American history.

And I don't give a damn what conservatives say - I'm quite thankful that there are a few adequately pissed off personalities in the media who have the temerity to question Bush's motives. (The nerve! Not parroting Bush's meme! How... free press of them)

Well played, Stew.

TMW: The Politics of Resentment

[Click for a larger image]

This week's This Modern World is a spot-on assessment of where Republicans stand regarding the building resentment (and dare I say it, fear) about our rapidly crumbling economy. Things are indeed growing dire by the day with our economic system, and seeing John McCain, Sarah Palin and [GASP!] President Bush on TV saying "We are taking measures to stabilize the economy" inspires NO confidence whatsoever. In fact, it makes me more fearful than ever that the worst rube to ever occupy the White House has his hands on the controls for a little over four more months. Bush's management of the economy is akin to a crazy psychotic with a baseball bat loose in a China shop, who with a crazed look on his face, screams, "What can I possibly fuck up next?!?" while wildly swinging away. The ONLY fun part about all of this is anticipating how just about everyone with an "R" behind his or her name will try to pin this on the Democrats; it will make for some fun yet tragic listening.

Speaking of This Modern World, Tom Tomorrow's blog is always a must-read, and yesterday he offered this nugget:

Certainly would be a good time to have some of the $500 billion plus we've spent on the Iraq war.

Ya think? Great point - it makes the War in Iraq appear even more asinine, tragic and unnecessary than it already does to everyone but the most rabid Republicans.

I'll add this to TT's thought - Obama ought to put out a new ad with images of our smirking, war-criminal president in the background, with the a little music by The Police with the lyrics "I'll always be king of pain...," followed by the staggering economic numbers that are flowing from Washington to Wall Street.

Yea, I think that would work.

Lots more a bit later today - it's grading day for me - I have about 100 speeches to grade over the next few days, but I promise to find at least a few hours later on today to comment and post about so much that has been going on in the last few weeks. I've got video, pictures, and loads to say, so please stop back.

TDS Bush v. Bush

No one nails it like Jon Stewart does, as I've written many times. The right only wishes it could be this funny - a great mixture of facts, humor and best of all, video footage from the past that the Bushes, McCain and Obama can't run from.

I find it particularly painful (and annoying, quite frankly) that Obama has "modified" his position somewhat on outer continental shelf drilling. I see his point, but seriously, does anyone not working for Big Oil think that it will be done in a completely environmentally safe way? And if the unthinkable happens, it's not a stretch to say that Big Oil will fight any judgment in the courts with its vast army of lawyers. In the end, U.S. citizens lose, and Big Oil wins, again. The only way this won't happen is if we stop them.

Lots more on energy and drilling coming up - I have plenty more to say about it (and a number of letters to write about it), along with some pretty good footage.

Forbes: Cap & Trade won't go far w/McCain

It shouldn't be news that Republicans aren't exactly the party in favor of combating global warming. And John McCain should be no exception.

Flashback to 2000, when George W. Bush promised that he would cap carbon emissions if elected president. It took him about a nanosecond to break that promise. In fact, Bush has gone out of his way to do nothing about global warming, which, in effect, is a reversal, since in the last eight years, our environment has gotten so much worse.

Fast forward to now - John McCain is simply the latest Republican candidate for national office who is painting himself green and promising to do a great deal about global warming if elected.

Don't believe it.

What's more, one of McCain's economic advisers, Steve Forbes, had this to say in the footage above about Cap & Trade, a program that would limit corporations' carbon emissions, but would allow them to trade and pay for the right to emit more:

I think cap and trade is going to go the way of some other things, as you may remember, when he came into office, Bill Clinton had a proposal of tax carbons and stuff like that. I don't think those things are going to get very far as people start to examine the details of them.

I sincerely doubt that many environmentalists are buying into McCain's empty rhetoric about global warming anyway, but anyone who is should certainly take a look at the footage above and do just a bit of reading. Some cursory reading, McCain's voting record, as well as which organizations he accepts campaign cash from, will quickly reveal that he's no friend of the environmental movement.

W loves big business; Women? Whatever!

This one got my blood boiling earlier today. This week, it's anticipated by Washington insiders that the House will finally bring the Paycheck Fairness Act to the floor for a vote, legislation that would help close the wage gap between working men and women and “close loopholes that have allowed employers to avoid responsibility” for discriminatory pay.

It certainly makes sense to me. After all, women have been getting the shaft for decades centuries in our country for doing the exact same jobs as men (and their being allowed to even perform the same jobs as men is a recent phenomena in many fields). And this isn't a historical embarrassment for the employers and management executives, this is going on to this day.

In 1980, women, on average, made 60 cents on the dollar compared to men for doing the same job. In 2000, that number had narrowed to about 75 cents, and today it hovers between 80 and 85 cents, depending on which study or statistics you consult. Progress? Sure, but it's still an outrage. And it's instances like this where Congress can step in and right a wrong, ending injustice in how American women are paid. Makes sense, right?

Naturally, Our National Embarrassment is threatening a veto. From Think Progress:

In an official statement, the White House announced it would veto the bill:

The bill would unjustifiably amend the Equal Pay Act (EPA) to allow for, among other things, unlimited compensatory and punitive damages, even when a disparity in pay was unintentional. It also would encourage discrimination claims to be made based on factors unrelated to actual pay discrimination by allowing pay comparisons between potentially different labor markets. In addition, it would require the Department of Labor (DOL) to replace its successful approach to detecting pay discrimination with a failed methodology that was abandoned because it had a 93 percent false positive rate. Thus, if H.R. 1338 were presented to the President, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill.

Bush is clearly in Disneyland. For a bumbling, disastrous president now searching for his "legacy," this was a real chance to make a difference among the working class in America. Then again, I probably give the president too much credit, since he's never been a worker, and he's aptly demonstrated he has very little class. 

Here's hoping that Congress passes the Bill will overwhelming force, thereby sending Bush's veto pen right where it belongs. Hmm, just wondering - where are all of those bitter, angry women who were all hip to vote for John McCain because Hillary didn't get the nomination? Shrinking like Bush's popularity, one can only hope. I mean, really, that makes a load of sense - vote for a guy who has no problem calling his wife a "cunt" and who has made repeated, appalling jokes about rape, and whose party would rather side with big business than try to ensure that women get the pay they deserve.

Seriously, clear thinking women who aren't hopelessly ideological can't possibly consider voting for McCain, which would in so many ways be four more years of Bush's policies, can they? Only time will tell.

Seriously, what's next? African-Americans voting for David Duke?

Bush: "Wall St. got drunk"

I heard about this on Today this morning, so I had to post it - a rare moment of candor when we get to see President Bush's inner-frat boy. I'm sure his handlers would have preferred that he NOT say this.

Wall St. got "drunk," huh, Mr. President? (I'll resist the temptation to poke fun at his own issues with alcohol. Oops. As the saying goes, It takes one to know one.) How about a lack of oversight and regulation, two hallmarks of the Bush Presidency. The anti-government regulation sect of the GOP (which pretty much encompasses the whole party, actually) has to take some of the blame here, without question. It's certainly an oversimplification and unfair to blame the Bush administration for the entire mess the mortgage industry is in, but it certainly must take some of the blame.

One valuable lesson that we've learned during the Bush years, that I hope America and the Democrats don't forget, is that when regulation is left up to corporations policing themselves, in the end the working men and women of this country get screwed. We've seen it with the mortgage industry, the power industry, cable TV, many aspects of the media, the commodities markets (President Clinton must share in the blame there as well), etc. It's the unregulated commodities markets that are partially responsible for screwing Americans at the pump. (Despite John McCain's laughably absurd new TV ad blaming high oil prices on Barack Obama [and presumably, other Democrats] for opposing drilling on the OCS and in ANWR.)

Bush has screwed up so much, the next president is going to have to spend his first term cleaning up Bush's considerable messes, and take many political hits in the process.

Much more to come later today, including a comparison between the McCain and Obama tax plans (There is a great deal of misinformation out there), and much more, so please stop back this afternoon.

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.

Debunking the bunk on Al Gore's speech

Well, the reception from Al Gore's speech yesterday has been pretty predictable in many ways. (A short clip from the full version of his speech is above - and it's the best part, where he challenges America to have 100 percent renewable energy within 10 years.) Those who oppose him for political reasons are still whining about his electricity bill while ignoring the real problems facing our country. After I blogged about Gore's speech yesterday, I sent out an e-mail to a bunch of people, imploring them to at least listen to Gore's speech with an open mind. Here are two very different responses (my comments follow each one).

Here's the predictable, negative, right-wing ideological tripe in an e-mail from an unidentified conservative who I know through someone else:

If Clinton hadn't vetoed the bill to drill in ANWR back in 1994, we wouldn't have such dependency on foreign oil and we wouldn't have the high gas prices we have now. I've written to my congressmen to 'Drill here, drill now'. We need to keep gas prices down while exploring cost effective alternatives. Food prices are soaring due to the regulations "forcing" the use of ethanol (ever notice how much stuff uses corn syrup?).

How can you take Algore seriously when he's the biggest hypocrite out there? The money paid for "Carbon Credits" goes to a company he owns. And his own home uses 20 times the national average in energy consumption (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/GlobalWarming/Story?id=2906888&page=1)

(silly you...you know I have a soap box too....and I remember the Carter years and the misery index and I fear for our country (and my hard earned income) if a Socialist is elected president :-( )

Hmm - where to start...

First, I'm actually pretty amused that some conservatives can actually find a way to tie 2008 fuel prices to President Clinton. And just when I thought the Blame Clinton fad had faded. How silly of me. Conservatives have spent the last eight years blaming Bill Clinton for just about everything bad, all while George W. Bush has been driving America into the ground on many fronts. I'm happy and proud that Clinton vetoed ANWR drilling. The idea that ANWR can alleviate our energy problem is a farce and a sham, perpetuated by those on the right who think that a little more oil from our modest (at best) oil reserves will lower prices. WRONG. ANWR, even by generous estimates, would only provide a fraction of oil that American uses on a daily basis (approx. 21 million barrels per day, as of 2008). To wit, according to a statistical report from the U.S. Department of Energy:

The opening of the ANWR 1002 Area to oil and natural gas development is projected to increase domestic crude oil production starting in 2018. In the mean ANWR oil resource case, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR reaches 780,000 barrels per day in 2027 and then declines to 710,000 barrels per day in 2030. In the low and high ANWR oil resource cases, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR peaks in 2028 at 510,000 and 1.45 million barrels per day, respectively. Between 2018 and 2030, cumulative additional oil production is 2.6 billion barrels for the mean oil resource case, while the low and high resource cases project a cumulative additional oil production of 1.9 and 4.3 billion barrels, respectively.

What's all this mean? That we still need foreign oil, and lots of it, to function as we are right now with very little mass transit options, few explored alternative energy sources, and virtually no other automobile options, save a smattering of hybrids that are hitting the market, which still rely on oil to run.

There are a few more things that conservatives aren't considering, and that our corporate media (and Faux News) isn't telling us. One, has anyone considered that if we do start drilling on our outer continental shelf and in ANWR, OPEC could simply reduce production by the same amount, thereby keeping prices high? What or who is to stop them, other than begging by our politicians? The answer is, nothing, unless a Republican president wants to invade another country in the Middle East. (How much oil does Iran have again?)

Anyone who thinks that OPEC will sit on its collective hands and not lower production while we drill for more oil, thereby lowering the price of oil, raise your hand. Now go sit in the corner and put on a dunce cap.

Two, it amazes me that people think if we start drilling tomorrow that gas prices will magically come down. It ain't happenin', capt'n. These people (like the e-mailer above) who write their elected legislators demanding that we "drill here, drill now" don't realize that it's only going to line the pockets of Big Oil and the politicians they support (and we know who most of them are: G-O-P), and also destroy the environment in the process. It's just one more example on a tragically long list of ways that Republicans convince people to vote against their economic (and environmental) self interests.

Big Oil is NOT friendly to the environment, and there are many, many examples, most notably the Exxon Valdez. Sickeningly enough, ExxonMobile has fought in the courts tooth and nail the people whose livelihoods the company destroyed, refusing to make adequate restitution. So, should we open up a pristine refuge for Big Oil to come in and rape the land? How about, NO!?! No way. Big Oil has proven time and time again to be environmentally unfriendly (to be kind), yet now it claims it can extract oil from ANWR "in environmentally sensitive ways." (A line that President Bush happily pimps on TV, over and over and over.) That just sounds good for the political argument to turn our land over to Big Oil to be raped and pillaged.

Three, I seldom hear this argument voiced, but it's our oil, and by our I mean citizens of the United States - it's not Big Oil's. Currently, the oil companies pay the U.S. Government 12.5 percent of the oil's market value to get it out of the ground. If a law does get passed allowing Big Oil access to ANWR & the outer continental shelf, that rate should be doubled, and the money should go entirely toward development of alternative energy sources. What's more, a law should be passed imposing strict fines on the oil companies should they have an oil spill. What a novel concept - the polluter pays, not the taxpayer. In the last 30 years (since Reagan took office) - it's been the taxpayers who have largely been paying for corporate environmental disasters, not the polluter. That's an outrage of Biblical proportions.

As far as Al Gore and his electricity bill, I'm not going to waste a whole lot more time on it here, as I've blogged about this before, but I will repeat a few things (Note: it's "Al Gore," not "Algore," an elementary smear perpetuated by drug addict Rush Limbaugh, the uneducated Sean Hannity, and the asinine Newt Gingrich. It's sort of like saying the "Democrat Party" in lieu of the "Democratic Party," a McCarthy-era smear every bit as stupid and childish):

1. Gore has publicly stated that he purchases renewable energy and has taken many steps to reduce his carbon footprint, including putting up solar panels on his mansion in Tennessee, and I believe him. Hey, if the guy has one solar panel, it's one more than the White House has. But, the White House DID have solar panels when Jimmy Carter was president, but Reagan had them taken down. How stupid does that look, in hindsight?

2. The entire faux Gore Electricity Bill "story" has been endlessly flogged and pimped by a group called the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, a right-wing funded group that has been out to smear Gore for years now, specifically the day after his movie, An Inconvenient Truth, won two Oscars. But, I'm sure the timing was entirely coincidental, right? Anyway, read more about the myths behind Gore's electricity bill Here and Here.

3. Quite frankly, I don't care if Gore criss-crosses the globe in a 747 by himself - he's done more to raise awareness about global warming in the last two years than George W. Bush (or his father) did in three presidential administrations.

4. It's tragically hilarious that President Bush went out of his way on television a few days ago to say that he would NOT encourage Americans to conserve energy, that it's "not his place to do that." Unreal. Like it would be a bad thing for the president to set an example for the American people. Then again, why start now?

5. One more thing about oil spills - the right has perpetuated the myth total lie that there were no oil spills during Hurricane Katrina. I will write more about this in a bit - it warrants a separate post, but it's absolutely, 100 percent FALSE. This is yet another blatant example of the right-wing media's strategy of repeating a lie over and over, hoping that people will believe it if they hear it often enough. Sell that crap to the tourists, because I ain't buyin' it.

To be fair, I will say this about the e-mail above - she brings up two points that I sort of agree with, so there is some common ground.

First, ethanol is NOT the answer - I totally agree. Burning food for fuel is a monumentally stupid idea. But, it's not Gore who has been pimping ethanol, it's been President Bush. Spend 15 minutes on YouTube and you can find plenty of Bush speeches where he's talking so favorably about ethanol, you'd think we have enough corn to power the entire planet.

Second, I've never been a big fan of carbon credits, but I don't yet know too much about it. However, I'm not keen on giving a corporation my money, with which it promises to "plant a tree" or something of the like. I'll make my own decisions about how I help the environment, thanks very much. Hey, I may be a big fan of Al Gore (notice the spelling), but I'm not slavishly devoted to every idea he has. Just most of them. And I'm hearing more ideas and bold goals come out of his mouth about the environment than I've heard from Bush in 7+ years, but I'm repeating myself. (But that point bears repeating, to be sure.)

However, if Gore chooses to invest in a carbon credit company, so what? I'm sure he's invested in a great deal of "green" companies. How is that a bad thing? People who accuse him of promoting green ideas because he owns stock in some innovative green companies are missing the point, and are stuck in a Rush Limbaugh-like drug-induced haze, where being critical of Al Gore is supposed to be the right's answer to his innovative ideas, as well as our energy problems.

Speaking of investments, I guess the conservative e-mailer above has never heard of Halliburton, a company headed by Dick Cheney until he became vice president, and also the same company that's received no-bid contract after no-bid contract in Iraq. (Also a company that recently moved its world headquarters to the Middle East, away from prying eyes in the U.S. Anyone care to bet how much cash Cheney is lavished with from the company once he leaves office?) Halliburton has made hundreds of millions during this administration, due in no small part to its connections at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

And finally, I got a kick out of this line from the e-mail above: I remember the Carter years and the misery index. ... (Read: Hey, you stupid kid, I know more than you because I've been around longer.) Please - get a grip. What's more, turn off Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Lielly and their ilk and get some real news. Here's a few recent news items that this person may have missed: Consumer prices jumped 1.2 percent in June, the biggest one-month jump since another Republican recession, circa 1982. And a recent Washington Post poll revealed that consumer confidence is at a 16-year low, the lowest since 1992, another year of a Republican recession. But hey, let's not facts get in the way.

I also laugh and laugh at Repubes bringing up Carter whenever they get the chance, including McCain, who impressed no one with the witless remark, "Obama keeps saying I'm running for a third Bush term, but it sounds like he's running for Jimmy Carter's second term." Funny how McCain never mentions the eight years of President Clinton, which were mostly a time of economic growth. If Jimmy Carter's all McCain's got, he's going to have the look of a candidate who's going to get his ass kicked this November.

I'll bring up the other e-mail shortly in a separate post.

39 years ago yesterday

I remembered this yesterday, but forgot to blog about it until this morning. Every July 16, as an almost life-long NASA junkie, I always think about Apollo 11 (above, shortly after launch at Kennedy Space Center), and how I wish I were alive when it happened. (Hearing Al Gore talk about it during his speech today [below] reminded me to blog about it.)

What an awesome achievement by humanity - I hope I live a life long enough to see us go back, and to see us travel further out into the solar system - to Mars and beyond. I cannot wait - I just wish NASA had a little more fire (and funding) under its collective rear end to get to Mars quicker than the 2020s, but it's better than having no plans on the board.

I will always give President Bush credit for being the president who finally gave America the political will to go back to the Moon and beyond, but he sure hasn't proposed much funding for the endeavor. Here's hoping his successor gives NASA the resources it needs to get back to the Moon and Mars, and soon.

Bush's evasion of justice continues

I don't know how the Bush administration continues to get away with it - I really don't. Wait, check that - I do know how Bush and his con artists are getting away with it, and the answer is spineless Democrats.

From Karl Rove refusing a Congressional subpoena last week to President Bush's outright refusal to release documents that Congress demands, the administration continuously thumbs its collective nose at both Congress and the Constitution. The only thing more troubling is that Congress seems unwilling to do anything meaningful about it.

Last night on Countdown, Keith Olbermann had on Jonathan Turley to discuss the latest Bush obfuscation - claiming Executive Privilege in the CIA/Valerie Plame investigation. Turley wasted no time going after Bush, and he pointed out that those who voted to confirm AG Mukasky are now suffering the consequences:

“…This is why, when Senators Shumer and Feinstein saved Mukasey’s confirmation, this is what they purchased. And, what Congress needs to do, the only thing they can do, is bring back Inherent Contempt and to say they’re going to start to exercise contempt on their own, that the deal is off. Attorney General Mukasey has broken a very long standing promise to be a faithful broker, to bring these cases to the grand jury - he won’t. And Congress has a right to now say we’re going back to doing this stuff ourselves.”

I'm waay behind on my letter writing (I'm catching up later today), but we need to be writing our so-called leaders in Washington (as well as our elected representatives and senators) to let them know that they must hold those who are obstructing justice accountable. Find out who your elected legislators are by clicking Here, or better yet, call the Congressional Switchboard at (202) 225-3121, and you'll be connected to your rep. or senator (and they'll find yours if you don't know. Please, take a few minutes to leave a message - phone calls really do have more of an impact than e-mail or snail mail.

When I read that Nancy Pelosi is now publicly saying that an impeachment VOTE is off the table, despite several articles of impeachment being sent to the Judiciary Committee, I wonder how she was ever elected House Speaker in the first place. Pelosi and Harry Reid's conduct during this Congress have left me decidedly underwhelmed to be kind - they have held Bush and his cabal accountable for... oh, let me think... nothing.

However, it's not too late for all of us to demand that they do something about the many criminal offenses this administration has committed. And the biggest ones of all may be yet to come - an attack on Iran, and full-scale pardons for those who have flouted the law during the last 7+ years; Scooter Libby was just the tip of the iceberg.

h/t Crooks & Liars

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.

Blitzer's stroll down the Blvd. of Bush Lies

I have to give Wolf Blitzer major kudos for detailing the multitude of lies of the Bush administration. Normally, I don't agree with Blitzer on a number of fronts, but this is truly a great piece of footage.

I'm not still arguing against whether we should have gone to war in Iraq by bringing up this footage; what I'm doing is offering up the merits of a foreign policy that has gone terribly wrong. And this foreign policy will largely be continued by John McCain, who thinks it's funny to make jokes about bombing Iran. We cannot and we must not continue down the path of preemptive war, unless every single diplomatic option has been exhausted. Since we aren't even talking to the Iranians right now, it's not a stretch to say that all diplomatic options have not been explored.

And the double standard between Iran and North Korea is quite telling. I can distinctly remember the Bushies all but calling the Clinton administration a bunch of pussies for negotiating with North Korea to abandon its nuclear program.

Low and behold, over the weekend, I read that North Korea has been convinced to give up its nuclear program, through diplomacy, and that it will be removed from the State Department's terrorist watch list. So I guess that diplomacy only is an option when it's a country we simply don't want to invade (or can't afford to in terms of troops and money).

So much for diplomacy not being an option, and for North Korea being a member of the Axis of Evil. All accomplished through diplomacy.

My favorite parts of the video above, however, are Donald Rumsfeld's obfuscations, and Dick Cheney's combativeness when confronted with the facts by Blitzer. History will treat neither man kindly.

And Condi Rice's "mushroom cloud" statement from September 2002 now looks almost like a Saturday Night Live sketch.

Gallop poll on The Bush Factor

Here's a very interesting report about The Bush Factor in the upcoming election.

The most telling stat from this Gallup report - 49 percent of adults are very concerned that a potential McCain Presidency will continue the policies of the Bush administration. I'm amazed that it's only 49 percent. Only very recently has McCain attempted to distance himself from many of the enormously unpopular policies of Bush, with the noted exception of the War in Iraq.

But, blogs like this one and many others will certainly pick up the slack, because people do need to be aware of the fact that McCain has changed positions so many times, I'm going to start calling him John McKerry. You remember Kerry, '04 Democratic Presidential Nominee who most famously (and tragically) said, "I voted for the war before I voted against it." Okay, the proper context of that quote was not provided when it was rerun literally thousands and thousands of times leading up to election day, but it's amazing to me that Repubes are now turning a blind eye to McCain's "evolving issue positions" now that their candidate has a full blown case of it.

Actually, last night Keith Olbermann did a segment on McCain's changing positions, which I'll post in a bit.

Outrage: Bush praises McCain for GI Bill

Seriously, I wouldn't have even believed this if not for the video above. A little while ago today, President Bush, with a straight face, offered up praise for leaders of both parties for passing the G.I. Bill, including John McCain. What's so crazy about that, you ask? Well, as I've written about it before, McCain has been inexplicably opposed to the bill from jump, and he didn't even cast a vote in the Senate for the final bill.

I really don't see how any normal, rational, even passively political person couldn't conclude that Bush told a whale of a lie, and knew it, during this press conference. It's one of the things that drives me crazy about Bush - his blatant lying, when he knows he'd doing it. Okay, I'm not naïve enough to believe that there are many honest politicians in our country, if any, but that doesn't make Bush's words above any less wrong.

But it takes a special sort of contemptible scoundrel to drop a complete lie with a straight face before the cameras. During the last 7+ years, Bush has joined the ranks of Clinton, Reagan and Nixon by telling so many lies, it actually now stands out more when Bush is honest, because those instances are few and far in between. Today is just another sad, pathetic example.

A few other things are worth noting here. I'm wondering just what, in fact, Bush was thanking McCain for - opposing the bill as much as possible behind the scenes until public opinion overtook both men's opposition? It's a very poorly kept secret that Bush opposed the bill as much as McCain did, the former calling the bill "too expensive," which is incredibly laughable, since we are spending between $3 and $4 billion per week in Iraq.

Bush's signing the G.I. Bill into law is a typical move from the Bush play book, too - turning around and supporting a bill that he initially vehemently opposed - kind of like the Department of Homeland Security Bill in 2002, which was sponsored by Sen. Lieberman, back when he really was a Democrat. So, the play goes like this - Bush fights a bill he hates like crazy, and when public opinion proves him wrong, he turns 180 degrees and takes the credit by supporting it.

I'd love to know how many tens of millions of Americans who now think that McCain and Bush "support the troops" because of what Bush said about McCain after signing the bill.

McCain's "support" for the bill? How about not even showing up to vote for it. This is another one of many examples of McCain's strategy that he's employed for many, many months now - not showing up for votes, so he can't be criticized either way. So, if the public supports the bill, no one can say he voted against it. And if there are problems with the law's implementation later, no one can say that McCain voted for it. That's called a blatant lack of political courage. Translation: This must be more of what McCain calls his "straight talk" and another reason why the subservient press continues calling McCain a "maverick."

One final thought - the GOP, whose members never misses an opportunity to wrap themselves in the flag and to thump their chests while screaming, "We support the troops," should be called out on this fact - 22 senators voted against the G.I. Bill, all of them Republican. Now that's supporting the troops!

But wait! Look! Over here! Obama's not wearing an American flag on his lapel!!! He doesn't care about the troops! He's not patriotic!

Anyway, don't take my word for it about who voted what on the GI Bill - the non-partisan U.S. Senate Website has the roll call vote. People should remember this when, months from now, Bush is busy licking himself all over, saying he "supported the troops by signing the G.I. Bill." He initially didn't, and 22 Republican senators didn't when it counted, either.

I'd love to say the press won't let Bush and McCain get away with their lies about this, but I know better.

W leaves another leader at a loss for words

I know, I know, I need to get over it, and someday, when the War in Iraq is over, maybe I will, but I still can't believe, nearly eight years later, that this man became president of our country. I've never seen any world leader, anywhere, as inarticulate and embarrassing as Bush is.

During a press conference with Filipino President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo the other day, Bush had this to say:

BUSH: Madam President, it is a pleasure to welcome you back to the Oval Office. We have just had a very constructive dialogue. First, I want to tell you how proud I am to be the President of a nation that - in which there's a lot of Philippine-Americans. They love America and they love their heritage. And I reminded the President that I am reminded of the great talent of the - of our Philippine-Americans when I eat dinner at the White House. (Laughter.)

ARROYO: Yes.

BUSH: And the chef is a great person and a really good cook, by the way, Madam President.

ARROYO: Thank you.

As if Arroyo had anything to do with it. I'm reminded of an incident while I was working in a supermarket years ago, when an elderly woman was working there to handle out samples to customers. I was standing at the table getting a snack with a coworker, who was black, when the woman asked my coworker, as another black man walked by the table, "Why does he wear his pants like that? Do you know him?"

Sure lady - all black people know each other! What morons. The woman and our president, I mean.

Must see: Bush accuses UK journalist of "slander"

The George W. Bush European farewell tour continues to Wow, but for all the wrong reasons. Yesterday, during an interview with Adam Boulton, a British journalist with Sky News, Bush accused him of slander, for having the temerity to bring up the Bush embarrassments of Guantánamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. Watch the video above. A partial transcript:

BOULTON: And yet there are those who would say, look, let's take Guantánamo Bay and Abu Ghraib and rendition and all those things, and to them that is the, you know, the complete opposite of freedom.

BUSH: Of course if you want to slander America, you can look at it one way. But you go down — what you need to do — I think I suggested you do this at a press conference — if you go down to Guantánamo and take a look at how these prisoners are treated — and they're working it through our court systems. We are a land of law.

Really?!? "Working it through our court systems?!?" Where is our president headed next, Comedy Central? The Supreme Court recently ruled against the Bush administration regarding the prisoners at Gitmo (basically) having any rights whatsoever. The Guantánamo detainees now have the right to appeal their cases in our legal system (which, by the way, has the right-wing neo-cons all in a tizzy, but more on that in a minute).

It gets better - check out this exchange:

BOULTON: But the Supreme Court have just said that — you know, ruled against what you’ve been doing down there.

BUSH: But the district court didn't. And the appellate court didn't.

BOULTON: The Supreme Court is supreme, isn't it?

Wow - it just went downhill from there. I guess we should all be grateful that Bush "accepts" the Supreme Court's decision. And I'd like to know just what "law" Bush is referring to? The USA PATRIOT Act? The 1,100+ document that members of Congress had mere hours to read before it was rammed through a Congress ruled by Republican majorities? That law? Sure, it passed by wide margins in both houses of Congress, but legislators were under tremendous pressure to "do something" in the wake of 9-11, even if that "something" turned out to be a bad thing. A few years later, when the Act came under review, I distinctly remember the likes of Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, etc. questioning critics' patriotism, decrying that they were "siding with the terrorists." I know - it seems pretty absurd to read it now, and to some unbelievable, but it did happen.

History will also reflect that Bush has been rebuked by a conservative Supreme Court, time and time again, regarding the detainees at Gitmo regarding habeas corpus, military tribunals, and their rights to fight their charges in U.S. courts.

I'd say that Bush should be embarrassed, but he passed that signpost a long, long time ago (perhaps when he was busy running oil companies into the ground and profiting from it).

Bush just got bested by a British journalist, and he revealed something that anyone with a brain has known since he first was appointed to the presidency (& that I've been complaining about for at least that long) - when a court rules in favor of the Bush administration, Bush has nothing to say (but he's no doubting high-fiving his aides and sycophants in the West Wing), but when a ruling goes against the administration, Bush decries "activist judges" who are "legislating from the bench."

Honestly, Bush has pretty much lost the ability to surprise me, but this one even had me reeling for a Philadelphia minute. Click Here to see the full transcript, as well as the full interview, if you can stomach it.

Enjoy. Or cry.

h/t C&L

MoveOn ad calls McCain out on Iraq

MoveOn and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) have teamed up to produce and distribute this in-your-face political ad about a mom who isn't giving her son to a hypothetical John McCain administration, if he plans to stay in Iraq for 100 years. Yes, I know he recently vowed that he would have the troops out by the end of his first term, but even that's not reassuring. Just last week, he said that bringing troops home is "not important."

I said it last week, and I'll say it again - I sure hope that members of the military, as well as their loved ones, friends and family are paying attention to all of the claptrap that's coming out of McCain's mouth about Iraq (And one really MUST pay attention, too, because it changes hourly).

MoveOn will be running the ad in several battleground states in the coming days. I think its impact will be negligible, but this ad has more than a ring of truth in it, and it hits the war-mongering McCain right where it hurts.

Do I think this will win Obama any more votes? I seriously doubt it, because an ad like this isn't going to win over voters from the other side; it will merely anger them.

However, the powers-that-be over at MoveOn have to love the exposure the ad is getting from TV talking heads. A sample:

Chuck Todd - what a fool. A "shameless" ad? I'll tell you what's shameless - sending tens of thousands of Iraqis as well as thousands of American troops to their deaths over oil in an unnecessary, pre-emptive war, all for the fucking glory of George W. Bush, and now, John S. McCain III. And this war continues because Repubes and Bush don't have the political courage to say, "Hey, we made a mistake, and now we need to bring our troops home. We need to stop this war, which is an unacceptable drain on our economy, but most importantly on the lives of our young men and women."

Yesterday, Crooks & Liars rightfully pointed out the noted LACK of an uproar over this 2004 ad that pimped Bush comforting a 9-11 victim (conveniently when the cameras were rolling):

Bush and Cheney have been exploiting 9-11 since the day it happened, and now it's "shameless" to have a mother say that she won't send her son off to fight in an insane, asinine war that is accomplishing nothing? Yea, right.

America has had enough of this war, and those who like McCain who keep perpetuating it.

Iraq, 9-11 and fear mongering might have gotten Bush his second term, but all it's given the rest of us is a soaring national debt, soldiers who are physically and mentally broken when they return home, lowered prestige in the world, and a full-blown energy crisis. A vote for McCain is a vote for more of the same, Period.

To me, the mere thought of pulling the lever for McCain is downright revolting.

On Iraq, Bush=McCain in every way

This one is worth repeating over and over and over again (And I will between now and November) - McSame's rhetoric about the War in Iraq and how alike he is to President Bush. McCain has been spewing the same sewage for years about how victory in Iraq is just around the corner. Three years later, hundreds of billions of dollars have been wasted, not to mention countless Iraqi lives and thousands of Americans, and we're supposed to trust this guy about what he'll do in the Middle East? Puleeze.

I especially loved the part where McCain gets a beat down about what General Petraeus travels in every day. (I wish the video hadn't cut off his response, which must have been high comedy.) That, My Friends, is a classic example of McCain acting exactly like Bill O'Reilly - making stuff up, thinking no one will check on it. That sort of stuff will not fly in this campaign. McCain's been getting a free ride for months now, as the media paid attention to the contested Democratic Party's race for the nomination.

Now that the Democratic race is over, McCain is going to have to watch his words and his wild, unsubstantiated rhetoric. Actually, here's hoping he doesn't, because lots and lots of embarrassment will be sure to follow.

The GOP myth of Supporting the Troops

This is a very hot topic with me, and one that is hopefully gaining much needed momentum and attention by voters around the country. I'll be writing about this much more later today or definitely tomorrow, including some letters I've written to my legislators.

The Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008, originally introduced by Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA), is an important bill that absolutely must be passed by members of Congress. Yet, amazingly, there are people who are opposed to this bill in its current form, and who want a watered down bill because of cost, among them President Bush, John McCain and Lindsey Graham. And these are three of the biggest cheerleaders about Supporting the Troops.

I find their reasons for opposing this bull downright stupefying for a number of reasons. So does Jon Stewart (take a look at the video above). Much, MUCH more about this in the coming days.