Giuliani leads the GOP robo call attack

Listen to the ultra-annoying and stupid robo-calls that Rudy Giuliani, America's Profiteer, is doing on behalf of the McCain campaign. I have a hard time believing that robo-calls on either side of the campaign make much of, if not any, difference in the minds of voters. The only reason I can even think of why 9iu1ian1 would partake in such dumb activity is because he's looking for a plum assignment in a would-be McCain administration.

By the way, Rudy's voice makes me want to stick my head in an oven. I wish during one of his robo calls he would say "sufferin' succotash."

However, the stupidity isn't stopping there. On the Thom Hartmann Show last week, a caller from the Carolinas called in to tell a story about how he received a robo-call at 3 a.m. with some blatantly leading, GOP-leaning questions asked by a voice that lamely sounded like Barack Obama. After about 10 minutes, the call was finally identified as coming from the Republican Party. It's not a stretch to say that after 10 minutes that was mentioned just so the party could cover itself legally.

This is just another lame attempt to hoodwink voters. I firmly believe, as long as there isn't wholesale election fraud in selected states, that the American public truly isn't going to buy it on election day and that Barack Obama will be our next president.

Having said that, I sure hope that the Obama campaign, as well as Democratic voters, aren't even remotely getting complacent about his chances, because I still believe that this is going to be a remarkably close election.

Franken Interview on Thom Hartmann Show

Yesterday Al Franken was on the Thom Hartmann Show (audio above) to discuss Franken's candidacy for the U.S. Senate in Minnesota, where he's running against incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman. Right now, polls show the race to be a dead heat, but Franken seems to have the Big 'Mo - what with Michele Bachman below him talking like the hate-filled, scary neocon that she is running for reelection in the House, and the unpopularity of Bush and McCain in Minnesota, Franken is in position to come away with a victory in two weeks.

Also interesting to listen to their conversation on the Employee Free Choice Act; I happen to agree with them both. I think unions are an imperfect solution to the workers of America, but it beats the alternative. What's more, I think it's reprehensible that employees are fired in this country all the time for trying to organize a union.

Right now, union membership is at about 8 percent of our workforce (11 percent if you count governmental employees). That's a dramatic free fall compared to when President Reagan took office, when the number was around 25 percent. But, Reagan declared war on the middle and working class of America, and one of his first salvos was firing the striking PATCO air traffic controllers.

As I wrote over the weekend, support Franken if you can with even a $5 or $10 contribution. He's exactly the sort of progressive we need in Congress - smart, witty, and informed on the issues.

In lieu of wealth, McSame's spreading something else around

I was listening to last night's Real Time With Bill Maher this morning, and I heard some pretty sage words from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) (at right) that really struck me. We've been hearing all sorts of rhetoric from the McCain camp about Obama's comment that he intends to "spread the wealth around," which has been stoking up people's prejudices and hatred toward the lower class since those words came out of his mouth.

Actually the hatred in this country toward those less advantaged is nothing new; it's been happening for decades now, since at least 1980, and actually even longer. Of course, the right is willfully and forcefully aided in no small part in spreading this hatred by the hatemongers on right-wing talk radio and TV: Sean Hannity, Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Lou Dobbs, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, etc.

What gets pathetically little coverage in the media, and quite frankly what the Obama campaign should be doing a better job of articulating, is just how spectacular the chasm is between America's wealthiest and poorest, and how this democracy-threatening trend has spiraled out of control during the Bush administration.

Take it away, Bernie:

We don't talk about it terribly often, something they don't talk about in Congress and certainly in the corporate media - that the wealthiest 1 percent in America earn more income than the bottom 50 percent. The top 1 percent own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. We have by far, more inequality in terms of wealth and income than any other major country on earth. We have the highest rate of childhood poverty and more billionaires [than any other country] and I don't think that's what our forefathers intended.

Truer words have never been spoken by a politician in my lifetime.

What Sanders had to say is beyond inconvenient for Republicans and their many right-wing enablers - the right has successfully used Karl Rove wedge issues like gay rights, abortion, gun control, RELIGION, immigration (the '08 campaign's #1 wedge issue) and xenophobia to distract people who really need economic relief from nearly 30 years of Reaganomics, which has bankrupted our treasury and worked to destroy the middle class in this country.

We (and by "we," I mean the middle and lower classes of America) are never going to take our country back until we stopped being duped by politicians who really don't have our best interests at heart.

Incidentally, Sen. Bernie Sanders appears on Thom Hartmann's radio show on Air America Radio every Friday for a one-hour Brunch With Bernie segment, and it's excellent. I'm never going to live in Vermont (too cold for me), but I wish I could cast a vote for Sanders, and I hope more like him get elected to the U.S. Congress.

Debunking the b.s. lie about our media

I really don't know what happened to Lou Dobbs, but he's become the biggest braying jackass on a once great network. To hear Dobbs, the most notorious walking, talking xenophobe on a network not named Faux Noise Channel say that the media is largely "liberal" is a joke of the highest order (this footage is from a week or so ago). It's also worth noting that Dobbs has a partisan history going back to his earliest days at CNN, where he hosted Moneyline, later leaving the network after refusing to interrupt his precious show to air a speech delivered by President Clinton at Colombine just days after the shootings.

Anyway, what's been most evident since John McCain selected Sarah Palin as his running mate is the Republicans' return to their dog-eared playbook of Richard Nixon, which on page one says, "Slam the media for being overly liberal whenever there is news that's unfavorable to us."

And it's been parroted by every single Republican ever since when unflattering or bad news (much less a scandal) has befallen someone with an "R" behind his or her name.

I was listening to Thom Hartmann the other day, and he brought up an excellent point about Sun Tzu's centuries-old famous tome, The Art of War. The world-famous work deals with the art of military strategies and warfare. As Hartmann mentioned, in it Tzu reasons that a principle tactic of warfare is to present your biggest strength as your biggest weakness to your enemies, and that's precisely what modern-day Republicans are doing with our mainstream media - decrying the presence of a phantom "lib-rul media" whenever there is unfavorable coverage of their party or their candidates. Not only is the presence of a "liberal media" a fallacy, but it's unarguably on of the GOP's largest strengths.

To wit, there are over 1,000 radio stations in the United States that offer predominately conservative programming. How many liberal/progressive stations are there? Less than 100; and according to Hartmann, there are 70-80 He should know, since he's arguably the premiere liberal radio voice in the United States, and he has had a very difficult time getting on terrestrial radio stations in some leading media markets primarily because there are no stations to get on. The tide is starting to turn ever so slightly, but it largely favors hate conservative radio.

Some other interesting facts:

• Every major television network in the United States is owned by a multinational corporation - CBS, NBC, Fox Network, ABC, CNN, Fox Noise Channel, Clear Channel Radio, Comcast, and on and on. These giant corporations could hardly be considered Democratic (large D) leaning companies.

• One of the most visited Websites on the Internet, and the most visited political Website is The Drudge Report. According to his Website, here are the stats from the last year: "27,151,658 IN PAST 24 HOURS, 723,014,663 IN PAST 31 DAYS & 6,455,462,513 IN PAST YEAR." (And no, I'm not linking to Drudge's GOP tip sheet Website.)

• Faux News Channel is the most watched news channel in the United States, by far, whether on cable or on regular TV.

• The top three most listened to radio talk show hosts in the United States are Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Michael "Savage" Wiener, in that order - hatemongers all, and most importantly, purveyors of GOP talking points, and often, lies and hate messages of their own.

• As far as newspapers go, there are plenty of them out there of all stripes, but the Rupert Murdoch-owned Wall St. Journal has the second highest circulation in the United States, just behind USA Today; the WSJ's circulation is just over two million per day.

Some other newspapers...

#1 - USA Today - owned and operated by Gannett.

#2 - Wall St. Journal - see above.

#3 - The New York Times - owned and operated by the Sulzberger family - liberals by anyone's definition.

#4 - The LA Times - corporate owned and operated.

#5 - The Washington Post - also a liberal paper.

#6 - The New York Daily News, owned and published by Mort Zuckerman, whose conservatism is well known.

#7 - Chicago Tribune - a traditionally conservative paper operated by the Tribune Company.

#8 - The New York Post - a Rupert Murdoch rag - what is understood, needn't be discussed.

#9 - Long Island Newsday - is about to be purchased by Cablevision. Hmm, a newspaper that's going to be owned by a cable company. Just wondering where those loyalties lie?

#10 - Houston Chronicle - owned by The Hearst Corporation, a huge media conglomerate, and it's no mystery where that company's loyalties lie.

Other highlights...

#11 - San Francisco Chronicle owned by Hearst.

#12 - New York Newsday - See #9.

#20 - The Philadelphia Inquirer is now controlled and effectively owned by the insipid Brian Tierney, the CEO of Philadelphia Media Holdings. He is a well-known conservative "commentator" and also a failed GOP campaign manager. This same company also owns the only other major Philadelphia daily newspaper, the Philadelphia Daily News.

As you can see, it's quite obvious that you can find liberal and conservative media outlets if you look hard enough, but with the exception of newspapers (where it's relatively balanced, but a medium that's rapidly declining in circulation and reach), our media is anything but "lib-rul," despite what Repubes would have all of us believe.

As I've mentioned, Republicans just slam the media the minute some bad news hits - we are seeing it on an almost hourly basis with McCain, and especially with Sarah Palin. Their strategy is simple - just cry "liberal media," and said media outlet(s) will quickly fold under the scrutiny. If history has proven one thing in the first decade of this century, it's that virtually all outlets in the media go soft the minute they are accused of being "liberal." And when that doesn't work, just spread lies - it never takes them long to go from a conservative pundit/commentator/columnist to the mainstream media; just in the past few days, examples abound of conservatives doing just that to try and steer press coverage toward McCain.

The truth is, it's the media's duty to scrutinize all candidates, no matter what party they are from, including independents.

Beastie Boys' Time to Build w/Super Friends

You have to love The Beastie Boys and Super Friends - what a combination. (I'm guessin' if you're under about 25 or so, you can't appreciate what a wonderful combination it is. Sorry.) My one disappointment - no Gleek in the video. Oh well, no one's perfect. However, best of all, the 'boys rap about global warming, OPEC, Bush, the military, etc. It doesn't get much better than this.

Anyway, it's the mid-day music post - enjoy.

Philadelphia is a sweltering pot of stew today - I'm headed outside with my camera to wilt, sweat, and count my lucky stars that there are about 150 days until the election. With all of the bad news we are getting on just about an hourly basis today, it's the one thing I'm clingin' to, politically. I'm very blessed in a number of other ways, and I know that, but things seem to be getting tougher and tougher.

Well, as Thom Hartman always says, "Despair is not an option," and he's right.

Randi Rhodes suspended from Air America

Click on the YouTube video above, and you'll quickly see and hear why I despise most talk radio, on the right and the left. Randi Rhodes has joined a long list of both liberal and conservative morons who I cannot stand spending 10 minutes listening to - most of it is about attacking and name calling. I used to think that Air America Radio was above most of this, but my naïvetay has received a not-so-subtle dose of reality as of late with what passes for on-air talent at the liberal network these days.

Quite frankly, Thom Hartman, Bill Press and Ed Schultz are the only ones I have any use for. And Stephanie Miller.

Lynn Samuels would make a freight train take a dirt road - her voice is quite possibly the worst I have ever heard on any network, ever. I don't mean to play attack dog myself - she can't help how her voice sounds, but her pure obnoxiousness makes it all the more tougher to endure.

Alex Bennett is another one that drives me crazy, so I don't complain, I just don't listen. He goes out of his way to say that he hates Democrats as much as he hates Republicans. Well, good for you, Alex, but you are working for Air America Radio. Thinking for yourself is always a good thing, but I don't tune in to her his screeds against all politicians of any stripe. Please.

And now we have Randi Rhodes - what a sad example she's setting for liberals and progressives. I constantly am complaining about the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage and all the rest about their incessant attacks and demonizing of anyone even a nanometer left of center, much less everyone else who doesn't carry the GOP party line, 24-7.

Well, Rhodes is no better. I'd like to know exactly what she thinks she's accomplishing by attacking Hillary with so much gusto. She can't possibly be considering voting for McSame if Hillary is the nominee, can she?

I was just on Air America's Website, and I was reading the comments that follow the announcement of her suspension, and they make for an interesting read, no doubt. Sure, Rhodes is free to say what she would like - we do, after all, have a little something called the First Amendment. But, that doesn't mean that Air America is under any obligation to make her voice heard. There is a thing called standards, and what does it hurt for Air America to take a stand? After all, she couldn't get away with saying stuff like that if she were on terrestrial radio, and most agree it's a good thing that people can't go around saying "fuck this" and "fuck that" on radio that is available to everyone over public airwaves.

Yes, she was saying this during a comedy routine, but AAR is correct in discipling her; broadcasting personalities can't simply make comments like these and not expect to be reprimanded. How long do you think Wolf Blitzer would be employed if during a stand up comedy act he called Ann Coulter "a stupid c---"? Or how about Jonathan Alter of Newsweek, who is a political columnist - what if he called Condi Rice "a stupid bitch" during a comedy sketch? He'd be out of a job tomorrow. The reason is simple - Blitzer and Alter are both reflections of the very public media they work for, and inappropriate, hateful comments would probably be viewed in a very negative light by many of the viewers and readers of those respective media.

I do agree that free speech and censorship are both valid concerns and must be monitored closely, but there are standards that most media will abide by, and evidently, according to AAR, she violated them.

What's more, Rhodes' comments represent the kind of hate speech, as I've mentioned, that the right-wing talking heads engage in just about every day, and Progressive and liberal bloggers the world over (yours truly included) vilify them for it. Isn't it possible for any nationally known broadcaster of any political stripe to comment on a candidate or an issue without it turning into fifth-grade name calling?

Just a thought.

Bush v. Democracy: Bush wins, again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Think Progress has more.

W won the battle, but he's still losing the war

Senator Chris Dodd, to date, has been as sensible as any Democratic Presidential Candidate about the War in Iraq. He's right - Bush is unwilling to do anything about his policy and the War in Iraq.

I've been pretty angry with Democrats about how they have capitulated to President Bush on Iraq, but I'm much more outraged at Republicans, who, through their votes, have allowed this idiotic, misguided war to continue. As far as I'm concerned, Republicans who voted for this war to continue all have blood on their hands. (And that goes for any Democrats [Hi, Senator Lieberman] who voted in favor of funding with no time tables for withdraw.)

As Thom Hartmann so succinctly put it on his radio show the other day, our collective outrage really had ought to be directed at Republicans, who allowed funding to continue by not giving either house in Congress a veto-proof majority to end funding for this war. But I've still got plenty of venom left for Democrats, too.

I just don't get it.

On Wednesday, Carl Hulse in the New York Times cited "senior Democrats" in a new analysis piece:

Democrats said they did not relish the prospect of leaving Washington for a Memorial Day break — the second recess since the financing fight began — and leaving themselves vulnerable to White House attacks that they were again on vacation while the troops were wanting. That criticism seemed more politically threatening to them than the anger Democrats knew they would draw from the left by bowing to Mr. Bush.

Some lawmakers favored sending Mr. Bush another bill with a timetable for withdrawal and risking a second veto, the senior Democrats said. But they said they had questioned whether such a measure could pass the Senate a second time, raising the possibility that Congress would be left sitting on the bill and carrying the blame.

"It would have stayed at this end of Pennsylvania Avenue," Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said of a second timeline measure. I guess the current "leaders" in the Democratic Party have never heard of an idea called "having courage for your convictions."

First of all, who gives a DAMN about Bush criticism? I still cannot believe, after all that has happened in the last 6+ years, that the Democratic leadership still runs and hides at the threat of White House attacks. It pains me to write this, but somewhere, Rasputin Rove is sitting and laughing at this latest turn of events. Never in modern history in this country has a president with scarcely over 18 months left in his presidency wielded so much power.

The time table abandonment is particularly galling since the chief reason Democrats were put in power last November was to fight Bush on Iraq and to end this war.

The time for the Democrats to sink their teeth into Bush's rear end is now. The Democratic rank and file voters want them to do it. Public opinion is on the side of the Democrats, too. I'd like to know just what else they need to get this job done.

I've read all sorts of conflicting reports about what will happen next year - a second surge, increasing troops levels, a massive reduction in forces, or more of the same. I'm not sure what's going to happen, but this you can bet on - the Republicans will find a way to spin developments in Iraq to blame it all on Democrats.

But, who needs a crystal ball to figure that out?

Air America lives

It seems that reports of Air America Radio's demise have been greatly exaggerated. And thankfully so.

I'm the first to admit that when Air America launched on March 31, 2004, I was very enthusiastic, specifically because of Al Franken's involvement. When Franken left the network on February 14 of this year, I canceled my subscription to the network. (A small fee every month gets you an Air America Premium account, where you have unlimited access to podcasts of every Air America program.)

However, after hearing good things about Thom Hartman, Franken's successor, I figured I'd listen to him on a trial basis. After listening to one episode of the show, I re-upped my subscription and haven't looked back.

There are many progressive talk-shows hosts I respect and admire on a consistent basis - Stephanie Miller (more on her in a separate post later this morning), Ed Schultz, Randi Rhodes, Bill Press and Rachel Maddow, but Hartman sits firmly atop the list.

Hartman's an encyclopedia of political knowledge, and not just about liberal stuff. The author of 19 books, he has been in radio since 1967. The best part about Hartman's show is that it's not about tearing people down and denigrating them. (If you want that, listen to The Sean Hannity Show or Rush Limbaugh's daily rant.) Hartman's show is about debating the issues, and he often has on conservatives to discuss issues and a (mostly) civilized manner. Opposing opinions are respected and sometimes vigorously debated. But, in the end, listeners can weigh both sides and decide for themselves.

And Hartman won't go down the smear and fear road, either. Recently, when one caller began making comments about Newt Gingrich's character flaws (like those are hard to find), he cut the caller off, saying, "I'd rather stick to the issues."

Bravo, Tom - you're a bigger man than me.

If you haven't listened to or considered Air America Radio lately, give it a go - you'll be happy you did.

A must-read book on cable news

This looks like a pretty good book I'd like to check out - Cable News Confidential: My Misadventures in Corporate Media, by Jeff Cohen.

Cohen has worked for MSNBC, CNN, and Fersatz News, so he has a fair amount of insight into not just how one cable news channel operates, but from a multitude of sources. I'm particularly interested in this book, since I've come to despise cable news so much recently. That doesn't mean I don't watch, but I'm extremely annoyed at what passes for news these days.

Hat tip to Truthdig for doing an interview with Cohen. Click Here to read an excerpt from the interview, and you can also download an MP3 file of the entire interview.

My favorite passage of Cohen's from the interview, and I found myself saying out loud "YES!" as I read it:

Schooled in the protocols of cable news, the Bush administration brilliantly exploited the medium's worship of live events. When I was at MSNBC in 2002/2003, I witnessed producers nearly orgasm at word that the White House would soon be serving up a photo-op or briefing. Upon hearing of these events—called "pressers" — all else is put on hold to assure that the second the administration event starts, MSNBC and the other news channels are ready to air it live.

Team Bush might schedule a White House press secretary's briefing ("the president stands tough against terrorism") ... followed by a Pentagon briefing ("war on terror is on track") ... followed by an afternoon speech from President Bush in front of a patriotic flag backdrop and cheering handpicked crowd ... followed by a briefing on the latest terrorism arrest or scare from the Justice Department or Homeland Security. Through its ability to dictate the rhythms of the news day, the White House's often singular view of reality would air at length in near monologue fashion.

I've got a specific, contemporary example.

When the hearings on the U.S. Attorney firings started, on the first day, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was going to make an opening statement. At the exact moment Leahy was scheduled to begin the hearing, which was covered live on every cable network, Bush begins a press conference, and the networks cut away to him. Thom Hartmann talked about this at length on his show last week.

Yet another way that the Bush administration will do just about anything to control the news and to stay atop the polls. About the only thing this administration hasn't done to maintain popularity is use the military. Wait...

Anyway, this looks like a good book, and I'd like to get to it this year, but there are literally 20 other books ahead of it. I'm starting my political book reading schedule about 9 months ahead of time, and I've got a bunch to get to.

I'm also very behind on writing some book reviews, which I hope to get to in the coming weeks.

Tom Hartmann Show the place for informed, reasonable debate on war

Today, I listened to a podcast of Thom Hartmann's show from yesterday, and during it, a Vietnam Veteran called in, and what he said struck me in a very profound way. He said that many Vietnam Veterans are alive today because Congress pulled the plug on that war. He also mentioned another thing I hadn't thought about - that generals are in the business of getting promoted (Read: Getting another star). When that happens, they are replaced with another general, who comes in and has to clean up the mess (or continue on with a war strategy that isn't working).

Pretty well stated, from a man who lived through the disaster of Vietnam.

When I heard the vet call in, it also reminded me of the new Nixon book that I blogged about last night: Nixon and Kissinger: Partners in Power, by Robert Dallek. The book was recently profiled and excerpted in Vanity Fair, and in that excerpt is the following passage from the book:

Using language that has a painfully contemporary echo, Kissinger and Nixon very quickly came to private conclusions about Vietnam that they never revealed publicly and denied entertaining. "In Saigon the tendency is to fight the war to victory," Nixon told Kissinger, according to the transcript of a 1969 phone conversation. "But you and I know it won't happen - it is impossible." Even so, according to [White House Chief of Staff Bob] Haldeman's unpublished diaries, Nixon later urged that Democratic critics making this same point should be labeled "the party of surrender." When someone told Kissinger that Nixon could not be re-elected, because of Vietnam, he disputed it and added, according to a memo of a conversation, that "anytime we want to get out of Vietnam we can," and that "we will get out of Vietnam before the [1972] election." Nixon wanted to plan the removal of all U.S. troops by the end of 1971, but Kissinger cautioned that, if North Vietnam then de-stabilized Saigon during the following year, events could have an adverse effect on the president's campaign. According to Haldeman's diaries, Kissinger advocated a pullout in the fall of 1972, "so that if any bad results follow they will be too late to affect the election." He apparently had nothing to say about the American lives that would be lost by deliberately prolonging the war. Just before a peace treaty was signed, Kissinger in a phone conversation advised Nixon against stating that this was a "lasting peace or guaranteed peace because this thing is almost certain to blow up sooner or later."

[Emphasis Mine]

When I heard the Vietnam Vet on Hartmann's show today, all I could think about are that the parallels between Vietnam and the War in Iraq grow more and more apropos by the day.

So, to quickly put the Vietnam War in perspective - 20,604 Americans gave their lives AFTER Nixon took office in January 1969 in a war that, according to Dallek, Kissinger said, "anytime we want to get out of Vietnam we can"? Just another revelation from a war that continues to be a national disgrace. When I read items like that, it's absolutely no stretch to say that President Nixon and Henry Kissinger are war criminals.

Put another way, it is not out of the question for Bush to pursue a similar strategy? Who among us, other than the blowhards at Fox News and the radical religious right, would be surprised if our troops were withdrawn from Iraq in July or August of next year, amidst a backdrop of Repubes claiming victory?

Whenever we bring all of our troops home out of Iraq, one thing is for certain - Democrats won't get an ounce of credit, at least among Republicans and most of the mainstream media.

Another caller on Hartmann's show, an MP from Arizona who served in Iraq, called in, and was livid at what this administration is doing to our military, and our soldiers. He briefly discussed the very active campaign to recall John McCain in Arizona. Whether the drive will ultimately be successful is anyone's guess, but it is a signal that his support is collapsing in his home state. This caller also discussed President Nixon's idea to use tactical nuclear weapons in Vietnam to achieve victory. I've read about this before, and I don't know the veracity of those stories, but considering everything else Nixon did, it wouldn't really come as a shock. According to this caller, Nixon looked out onto the National Mall in Washington, D.C., and saw one million protesters sharply opposed to his war policies, and he changed his mind. His point in bringing up that story (true or not) is the power of the protest, and he makes an excellent point - our voices can and must make the difference in this war.

It's become a running theme with just about every election - that it's the "most important election in our lifetime." It does become trite, but I shudder to think what would have happened had the Democrats not regained control of Congress some 20 weeks ago.

One thing's for certain - there would be very few, if any, substantive discussions about bringing our troops home, and the Democrats would have been a marginalized minority, just like they were during the first six years of this administration.

Wishing Sirius Left would leave

I'm a big fan of Sirius Satellite Radio, ad most of you know by now. But, in one aspect, I wouldn't mind seeing Sirius and XM merge, because the Sirius Talk Left channel on Sirius is pretty much God-awful from top to bottom, with a few exceptions.

At the top of my list of peeves about Sirius Talk Left is Lynn Samuels (below right). She could be the worst radio talk show host I have ever heard. Ever. Samuels and Rush Limbaugh should mate to create the ultimate anti-Christ of radio.

From her voice (a dead on ringer for Linda Richman on Saturday Night Live's Coffee Talk), to her ridiculous opinions, she has no business being on radio, period. To wit, just today alone, she's laughing about a joke that Sarah Silverman made about Anne Frank's genitals; she also is whining and complaining about how several Mexican actors were waving Mexican flags last night at "the AMERICAN Academy Awards!" (emphasis hers) She later goes on to say, "They can take those Mexican flags and stick them up their f------ a----. Sniiiiiffffffffffff! Smell the diversity. This moron calls herself a Democrat?!?

Last week, Samuels said this about men, and she wasn't joking: "There isn't a man alive on Earth who doesn't hate women. Men would have exterminated women a long time ago if they could have gotten away with it - they would have just left a few of us around to make babies." Yea, sure Lynn. My favorite thing about Samuels is how she's always saying on the air, "Nobody likes me. I don't have any friends." I can't possibly imagine why. What a sick, twisted, bitter old maid.

Weekday mornings from 6-9, Bill Press (at left) is on, who's at least listenable. But, at times, I can understand why CNN fired him, too. His reasoning on the issues, whether I agree with them or not, is generally well thought out, but then he'll turn right around and revert to Sean Hannity-like name calling that gets old in about 15 minutes.

The Alex Bennett Show follows Press' show, and it's a close second to Lynn Samuels' blabbering as the most annoying show. Bennett (left) has a cohost, Garrett, argues with Bennett about everything he brings up. Nothing is out of bounds for argument between these two. When I listen to talk radio, I want to be informed, not annoyed. Some good-spirited debate is one thing, but listening to this show is akin to listening to a three-hour battle royal. The commercials during Bennett's show are like islands of reality in a sea of diarrhea.

The Thom Hartmann Show is a good one, but unfortunately, he's mostly on Air America now, and he's only on Sirius from 12-1, right before the Lynn Samuels train wreck. I like him, but I'm never around to listen to his show at noon. And, what's worse, Air America Radio has an exclusive deal with XM. Figures, too - when Air America first launched, it was on both satellite networks, but right before I get Sirius, it goes to XM. Again, that's one good thing I can point to about the proposed Sirius-XM merger - getting Air America.

The Ed Schultz Show is on from 3-6 in the afternoon, and he's my favorite. I flat out love his wit, banter, realism, and properly controlled and articulated anger. I could listen to him for six hours. I do wish he'd get more air time, but 3-6 is good, too, because that's generally when I'm driving home.

The Stephanie Miller Show follows Schultz's. So far, from what little I've heard, she's pretty good - she seems like an Ann Coulter, but more attractive, even tempered and intelligent. Basically, she's everything Coulter is not, and that's about as ringing of an endorsement as I can give.

I guess this ended up going long, but my whole point was to riff on Lynn Samuels. She's God-awful, but there aren't any other liberal channels on Sirius, and when I'm in the mood for politics, I put it on. Sometimes, however, when Samuels sends me over the edge with her absurdities, I switch over to NPR.