Joe Scarbourough: another partisan hack

Of all the Republican talking heads in our mainstream media, specifically TV, I've largely felt that Joe Scarborough is one of the more reasonable ones - not a ridiculous, babbling buffoon like Bill O'Lielly.

But, the Republican infighting has begun, as well as conservative pundits' criticizing and castigating Obama's every move as he sets up his administration. After all, the GOP just got pwned a few days ago, and the party and its supporters are fightin' mad. This is to be expected - I remember not-so-fondly in 1992 when then President-elect Clinton's transition team weathered similar criticism, but right-wing hate radio wasn't anywhere near the size it is today, and there were fewer Sean Hannitys back then.

A few mornings ago, Joe Scarborough wasted no time criticizing Obama's choice for White House Chief of Staff, Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL-5). On his show, Morning Joe, Scarborough laughably compared Emanuel to former disgraced House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. Seriously, Scarborough said it -- with a straight face.

So, Scarborough is comparing DeLay, a former member of Congress who is under federal indictment (and who is also tied to the Jack Abramoff scandal), to Rahm Emanuel, who has a reputation of being a tough political fighter and effective fundraiser? The last time I checked, Emanuel has not been involved in, accused of, or indicted of any crimes.

It would be a compliment to accuse Scarborough of using political hyperbole to disagree with an appointment, but calling it mindless, stupid partisanship would be more accurate.

Here's hoping that Obama has learned the lessons of the Clinton presidency, and that's to aggressively fight back against partisan smears, slanders and innuendo. As president, I realize Obama can't get distracted every little criticism, but Clinton allowed some blatant lies and distortions put forth by the right-wing media to fester, which in some cases proved an old maxim true: If you repeat a lie long enough, often enough and forcefully enough, people eventually start to believe it.

And by the way, what's with every Republican pundit having a fetish about President Jimmy Carter? (Sort of like their fetish with Ronald Reagan.) Carter's the president they point to when they are trying to make a political point. I'll go to my grave believing that Carter wasn't nearly as bad of a president as people make him out to be. Sure, he made plenty of mistakes (the Iranian hostages), but he also did a great deal of good, too. That's okay though - because Democrats will now have a president (George W. Bush) it can point to for decades when they want to make political points on the other side.

CNN points out McCain's oil flip-flop

This one is sweeter than light-sweet crude oil - CNN's Dana Bash pointing out John McCain's 180-degree reversal about drilling for oil off our coasts.

When I first saw this footage, I uttered out loud, "Wow." Finally, the press is starting to dig into McCain's many contradictions. His reversal on Big Oil exploration on our coasts is one example; his reversal on the Bush tax cuts is another. It's no surprise that running for president can go pretty far in modifying one's views, and McCain embodies that, to a T.

This all but signals an end (as Blitzer notes) of McSame's chances in The Golden State, and it will no doubt hurt his chances in Florida, too. Just how much remains to be seen, but there's no doubt that it will have an effect.

Hey, there's 138 days until the election, and that's plenty of time for McCain to reverse his opinion yet again, so stay tuned.

The bottom line is that oil is so 20th century - if that's McCain's solution to our energy problems, that Obama should take full advantage of McCain's myopia and use it as a political cudgel to do lots of damage.

But, Obama needs more than simply rhetoric on this issue - he needs a bold alternative energy plan. I think I'll write his campaign later today to urge him on.

One final note about this piece - McCain seems to have a Jimmy Carter fetish lately, which is beyond lame. Last week, in response to Obama calling a McCain victory a "third Bush term," McCain said it sounded as if Obama is "running for Jimmy Carter's second term." And Republicans wonder why McCain doesn't connect with younger voters, many of whom weren't even alive when Jimmy Carter left office in January 1981. Sure McSame, keep putting Carter down - it sounds so... so... contemporary.

Also, history shows that Carter was a leading proponent of energy conservation, even going so far as to install solar panels on the roof of the White House. He also gave a very famous speech in 1979 about the energy crisis in this country, which could be given again today almost verbatim, and it would still be applicable. (Please stick with the video below - I know the audio is bad, but it's only about a minute long - turn up your volume) ...

A pretty sage prophesy, at it turned out. Would Carter have really turned America around and got us off of our foreign oil addiction? We'll never know, but he at least addressed the issue. He never had a chance to carry out his plans, as he was defeated in the fall of 1980, but at least he discussed the issue, which is more than his successor Ronald Reagan did during his eight years in the White House. In fact, almost immediately after moving into the White House, Reagan had the solar panels removed from the building's rooftop.

I'm not naïve enough to believe that Congressional Democrats, along with President Clinton, deserve some of the blame about the energy crisis we are mired in. They certainly do share in the blame. But, the fact is that for 20 our of the last 28 years, a Republican has sat in the White House, and all three of those presidents have offered zero leadership on the issue of alternative energy technologies, including President George W. Bush.

Where am I going with this? McCain wants to drill more, threaten our coasts, and line the pockets of Big Oil. This is NOT the answer to our energy crisis.

I hope Obama comes up with a far and wide-reaching plan for combating this energy crisis, a crisis that will not go away, no matter how much we want it to. This crisis threatens our economy, our way of life, and our country's prosperity (or should I say prosperity in memory, because God only knows we haven't had much recently).

Get going, Barack - merely criticizing McCain's absurd proposals is not nearly enough - we need to hear what your aggressive, bold and sustainable solutions are to our addiction to foreign oil.

Oh, and way to go, CNN. Recently, I haven't had much reason to type that, but pointing out McCain's inconsistencies (to be kind) regarding energy policy is a start to what the network ought to be doing from now until the election.

Hell, I wish CNN would go more liberal. They've been called it for years, so they might as well live up to it now and act as a counter-balance to the detestable Fox "News."

Update: McCain doesn't even know his own energy policy. From his press conference yesterday:

QUESTION: The European Union has set mandatory targets on renewable energy. Is that something you would consider in a McCain administration? [...]

McCAIN: Sure. I believe in the cap-and-trade system, as you know. I would not at this time make those — impose a mandatory cap at this time. But I do believe that we have to establish targets for reductions of greenhouse gas emissions over time, and I think those can be met.

Oops. Crooks & Liars has the rest:

As Kate Sheppard explained, McCain new position is "completely out of line with his own proposal for a cap-and-trade scheme, both the plan he proposed with Joe Lieberman last year and his own presidential plan, released last month. They both would, by nature, be mandatory — hence the 'cap' in the name."

In other words, McCain doesn't understand his own policy. Or, as hilzoy noted, "The best you can say for McCain, on this point, is that he is completely unfamiliar with what is supposed to be one of his signature issues. Not knowing what 'mandatory cap' means, in this context, is like not knowing what a 'strike' is in baseball."

I love it.

McCain needs to take a long look in the mirror & be honest with himself, which would go something like this: "Well, my friends, it looks like I need to go back and study my proposals, which have been released on the Internet, before I go make an ass out of myself again."

:o)

Happy TMI, everyone!

Today is the anniversary of the Three Mile Island nuclear accident. I can't believe that it's been 28 years - I wasn't quite eight years old yet, but I do remember the accident quite well, since I've lived in Pennsylvania all my life.

TMI is not far from the state's capitol of Harrisburg. At the time, the plant was owned by Metropolitan Edison (Med-Ed), which was pretty personal to me, since my father and my stepfather at the time both worked for Met-Ed.

Thankfully, neither had to go to TMI for cleanup efforts, but there were rumors that they would.

The accident is a pretty amazing event in our nation's and Pennsylvania's history. It changed the direction of our energy policy, if you can remember back that far to when we had one. Presidents Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton and Bush have done damn little to effectively implement any meaningful energy policy that's really made a difference.

I bring up the anniversary for two reasons:

Nuclear energy can and must be a part of any effective energy policy for the next administration. I say next, because President Bush has done little more than offer up wishful thinking about ethanol, and before that, hydrogen-powered cars.

Also, the TMI accident also was a time long, long ago when presidents took bold action (both Jimmy and Rosalyn Carter personally visited the island during the crisis), and also held incompetent people accountable for mistakes. To his credit, President Carter sacked Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Joseph M. Hendrie after the accident, saying the NRC "needed new leadership" as a result of many mistakes at the plant and the NRC's poor handling of the crisis.

Of course, if TMI happened on President Bush's watch, Hendrie would have been awarded the Congressional Medal of Freedom.

Andy Rooney on Bush

This past Sunday, Andy Rooney delivered a pretty astute commentary on President Bush and his conduct on the War in Iraq. Rooney is a guy I often disagree with, but, of course, I agree with him on this one.

Before some of you start blabbering about the liberal bias at CBS, you might want to track down tape of Leslie Stahl's despicable interview of Nancy Pelosi. I'll blog about that later today.

Anyway, here's the text of Rooney's commentary:

I'd like to talk to you about something you probably don't want to be talked to about. I'd like to talk to you about something you probably don't want to be talked to about. I'd like to talk to you about something you probably don't want to be talked to about. I'd like to talk to you about something you probably don't want to be talked to about.

Someone - and I guess it's President Bush - has to tell us what in the world we're doing in Iraq now. I don't think any of us know. We did the right thing getting rid of Saddam Hussein, but what are we doing there now?

The Pentagon never tells us anything. Usually reporters and cameramen let us know quite a bit but it's so dangerous for them in Baghdad now that even they can't show us much of what's going on.

So far almost 2,800 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq. I say "almost 2,800" because there is no exact number. It changes by six or eight every day. That's how many of our young men get killed? And for what? Just tell us, Mr. President. For what? It hasn't even been good for Iraq; it certainly hasn’t been good for us. The whole world thinks less of us for what we're doing there.

This little war is costing us $2 billion a what? I forget, a day, a week, a minute? It's the kind of money I can't even imagine.

President Bush should stand up there in front of us on television and do the hardest thing of all for any president to do. Tell us the truth. He should just say "Americans, there's something I have to tell you. You trusted me to be your leader and I thought I was doing the right thing when we went into Iraq. Well, I hate to admit it but I was wrong. I'm sorry but we never should have gone in and now we should get out."

Well, I'm not holding my breath until President Bush says that because I've never heard him admit he was wrong about anything. It isn't something presidents do. I don't recall hearing Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter admitting they were wrong either.

I was asked to keep this short tonight. Fortunately it's easier to be short when I’m serious. Funny takes longer.

##

Well said, Rooney. And he makes a good point about any president being honest - Democrat or Republican.

We're over a barrel, & I'm sick of it!

A pretty good cartoon that illustrates our leader's hypocrisy when it comes to oil. This is quickly becoming one sticky issue for the president. However, it's not Bush's approval rating that I care about (which, by the way, even the National Republican News Channel, Fox News, is reporting to be at an all-time low). What I really care about is money out of my wallet, and how we're getting screwed.

However, the best part about all of this is watching and listening to hopelessly inept politicians (mostly the Republicans in power) attempt to pander to the electorate for votes in an election year.

Probably my favorite was Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's idea of a $100 rebate to taxpayers to help pay for gas. What a hilarious joke, and a waste of $15 billion. It seems like whenever there's a problem, the Republicans have two strategies - talk about the War on Terror to scare everyone (But not the cost of the war), and offering another fucking tax cut that future generations (not Bush's) will have to pay for, with a staggering amount of interest. Thankfully, the rebate proposal appears dead in the Senate. That would be like putting a Band-Aid on a severed limb.

USA Today has it right today - $3 per gallon has been about 25 years in the making. This is the result of a piss-poor energy policy since the days of the Jimmy Carter presidency, and it's certainly been exacerbated by the current Bush presidency. Bush and Cheney, two former oil men, and now they see $3 per gallon and proclaim, "We need to do something about that." It's a mess that Republicans have largely created. Who gets the lion's share of campaign contributions? Republicans do. To be fair, Democrats deserve nearly as much blame, though. Why? Because they are too wimpy to fight for what's right - conservation and alternative fuel sources.

I love how conservation has pretty much always been painted by the Republicans as some sort of liberal elitist plot to prevent people from being able to drive the cars they want without any consequences. Wasn't it Dick Cheney who implied that conservation is a personal virtue, but really it translates into some sort of moral weakness? What a surprise. Bush and Cheney have spent their political careers protecting the oil industry and people like this man:

Former ExxonMobile CEO Lee Raymond (who Bill Mahr has dubbed "Fat Bastard" - priceless), who just received a $400 million golden parachute from the company. Raymond gets the golden parachute, the American public gets the golden shower. ExxonMobile, the world's biggest oil company and historically one of President Bush's biggest political donors, has reported staggering profits in the last few years, including $8.4 billion in the first three months of this year alone, its best first quarter ever. Oil executives and politicians are getting rich off our hard-earned money, and I'm sick of it.

Of course, as soon as prices spike, members of Congress rush to get in the front of the cameras, promising an investigation into price gouging. Without fail, it never happens or nothing turns up. Bush said last week that there was no evidence of gouging. Wow, that was a pretty thorough and quick investigation. From start to finish, that was, what - 2-3 weeks? It took him over a year to agree to a watered down 9-11 investigation.

Probably my favorite Bush line last week was his refusal to support an excess profits tax for the oil companies. He reasoned that was not necessary, suggesting that oil companies reinvest their profits to increase refining capacity. I love how the president suggests things and then points to it as doing something about a problem. Kind of like how he campaigned during the 2000 election on the mandatory curbing of greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide emissions. Once he got into office, he quickly backed away from that promise, instead encouraging voluntary reductions. Way to take a stand, W. Nothing like further appeasement of your big oil/big business friends.

Two other Republican initiatives crack me up when it comes to lowering the price of oil - ANWR and the strategic petroleum reserve. ANWR, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, contains lots of oil underneath it. Republicans have been clamoring for their oil buddies' permission to drill for oil there, and Democrats to date have successfully blocked it. I have three words for that idea - NO FUCKING WAY. I've got one word why: Valdez. Exxon destroyed the lives and livelihoods of many people, to say nothing of the environment. Of course the company claims that if allowed to drill in ANWR that it would be safe and environmentally friendly. Sure. To make matters worse, Exxon has refused to pay out a $5 billion court-ordered settlement to the fisherman and citizens whose lives were devastated by the oil spill. What's more, we now import 60% of our oil. We cannot drill our way out of foreign oil dependence - there simply isn't enough oil available under our country to make that happen.

I get a kick out of the president's pledge to release some oil from the strategic petroleum reserve to ease price of oil, when 1. it really won't make much of a difference, and 2. we lack adequate refining capacity, so putting more oil on the market is like giving a cadaver a tax cut. Psst - don't tell that idea to Bush or Senate Republicans - nothing like courting the cadaver vote.

So what can we do? I've got a few ideas, but the three best ideas are conserve, conserve and conserve.

I know, it's not easy. But, here are 8 great ideas that can help conserve the amount of gasoline you use: 1. Run multiple errands at once 2. Make sure your car is tuned up and the tires are at the recommended inflation. 3. Buy a car that's good on gas, preferably a domestic hybrid, if Detroit ever starts producing decent ones. My current favorite is the Toyota Prius. 4. Don't buy gas from ExxonMobile. Yes, I know that EM supplies gas to some retailers like Wawa, but you can still make a statement by not buying at Exxon or Mobile stations. 5. Support public transportation and candidates (no matter their party!) who support mass transit initiatives. 6. Write letters to your legislators voicing your opinion on mass transit. 7. Flat out drive less when you can, by changing jobs when possible (I'm doing this before our wedding, and part of it is the rising cost of gas and my disgust with commuting - I'm getting a job in the city I can walk to), riding a bike or... GASP! Walking! It's great exercise and costs nothing but time. 8. (And this one is awfully tough for me) - When you do drive, slow down. You'd be amazed at the gas you save by driving 55. It's something I have to work on, but I'm trying.

It's time for Americans to do something about the rising cost of gasoline other than bitching about it. Let's fan the flames of discontent by firing all of these lawmakers who are soaked in oil and gas and who are happy to stage PR gimmicks like "investigating" price gouging. We know we are being gouged, but the same lawmakers who receive massive campaign money from oil companies aren't going to punish those companies for predatory business practices like price gouging. So, let's punish the oil companies and their political patrons buy using less and pulling the voting lever.