minimum wage

The folks over at Think Progress have a post on the effects of increasing the minimum wage in the state of Illinois, too bad its bad for the country and its electorate, as William Niskanen of the Cato Institute made clear in a post in June of 2006:

The employment of the least-skilled members of the labor force—often new entrants—would be reduced.

The non-wage benefits and working conditions of those who keep their jobs at the higher wage would probably be reduced.

Most of those who keep their jobs at the higher wage would be secondary workers in non-poor families

If liberals aim to lift people up, this is not the way to do it.

Kemp-Roth 1981

Today marks the anniversary of a hallmark of conservative/libertarian thinking, reduction in the tax burden of the electorate. Here is an article from 2002 by excommunicated conservative Bruce Bartlett on the effects of Ronald Reagan's signature piece of legislation.

yes this is a quote from Ronald Reagan

"Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors, which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?"

Ronald Reagan at the 1976 Republican National Convention. My next post will explore the renewed image of our 40th President.

lonely

The Cato Institute, Reason.........What else do aspiring libertarians have to read these days that caters to their purist belief in the power of limited government? Well, here's hoping I can be lumped into these titans. The court of greg's opinion welcomes all tired, Bush drunk conservatives to join me in my fight to educate those afflicted with elitist liberalism.

Limited government, personal responsibility, foreign policy based on realism and above all....liberty from those who think they know better.

Hurrah!

Tomorrow it will be the one week anniversary of the "drubbing." This makes me happy, not as a Democratic warrior, but one who hopes the gridlock will ensue. If George W. Bush has taught me anything, it's that government at any level is an utter failure. This election victory for the establishment Democrats proved that the electorate could no longer stand much more of today's Republicanism.

Why? Because three years later we are still trapped in the hell that is Iraq. By his own admission, this is not Bush's problem, just whoever is fortunate enough to occupy his seat in January 2009. The Democrats see their victory as an affirmation of liberalism. It is not. It is an affirmation of the American electoral system. Soon America will grow tired to the party of Pelosi. Then the cycle continues.

Of liquids and planes

Today's foiled plot confirms the last vestages of neoconservatism's worst fears: we are in a war on terror against a bunch of pipe bombers. Men who mix together cocktails of death on commuter airplanes.

Gone are yesterday's enemies, fearsome military powers bent on world domination, just scattered islamist thugs making videotapes in underground bunkers or hollowed out office buildings. We are the United States of America, we have the CIA, the FBI and the deadliest arsenal on the planet and we go to code red over these guys? World commerce grinds to a halt in the sky.

If only we were on the ball on September 10, 2001.

Centrism defeated in Connecticut

The victory by Ned Lamont was a repudiation of centrism. Not centrism when it comes to budgets, taxes and other legislative affairs, but in matters of war.

A majority of the country wants out of Iraq. Lieberman wishes to stay, for now. This is not acceptable to the people of Connecticut or the country as a whole. American troops are about to become embroiled in a civil war and the losing candidate can only shrug his shoulders.

Lamont's election means nothing more, nothing less. Kind of like Joe Lieberman.

the stain of Iraq

The invasion and occupation of Iraq should serve as an a warning to future administrations that the goal of ending "tyranny everywhere" is unrealistic and dangerous. Dangerous to our national security, dangerous for our troops who are given this incoherent task and dangerous for the psyche of our country.

Like most, I don't believe George Bush had good intentions for the people of Iraq. His goal was simply to remove Saddam Hussein and the rest was an afterthought. He has explicitly stated the cleanup of Iraq will be left to future presidents, meaning the financial burden of restoring Iraq if at all possible, will be left to the American taxpayer.

How unconservative.

God of Food

Alton Brown was meant to talk about food. It's in his DNA. "Feasting on Asphalt," which I just caught on Food Network is his new show and once again Brown sucks you in for this new traveling, eating and more eating hour of everything food.

Watching the program is like discovering America for the first time, meeting genuine Americans who love to eat and love to watch how happy people get when they eat. Please tune in every Saturday night and get ready to drool, grin and love being American.

For more, enter his world.

Words of a war criminal

Does the violence tend to be up during the summer, in the spring, summer and fall months? Yes it does. And it tends to decline during the winter period. Does that represent failed policy? I don’t know. I would say not. (tip: thinkprogress.org)

Guess who this quote belongs to?

Rout

Interesting piece by one of the major players in DC, Charlie Cook of the National Journal (sorry, you need a subscription) believes the big spenders in the GOP are going to get their clocks cleaned. We're talking tidal wave here folks.

Which leads me to ask anyone out there in the blog wilderness, what will the Democrats do if they control Washington? Will we see a restoration of pay as you go fiscal policy? Or, will Nancy Pelosi push through massive new spending programs aimed at keeping the poor poorer, taking a cue from George Bush. Will the Democratic Party actually become more hawkish than Bush and Co and push for a strike on Iran?

So many questions.

Bolton v World

First off, sorry for any delay in posting.

Now, on the confirmation of John Bolton. Look no further than Steve Clemons, over at the Washington Note for daily coverage. There is no one more accurate or better.

neoalarmism

Newt Gingrich has an op-ed in today's USA Today with the byline "Now is not the time for restraint" which allows me to skip the entire piece altogether knowing Gingrich's history with the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute and its desire along with George Bush to end "tyranny everywhere." In other words, insanity.

We are in dire need of realists. They need to somehow infiltrate the Pentagon and the National Security Agency so we can avoid a repeat of Iraq, only this time with consequences most severe.

Get them out

It's hard to not look at what is going on in Lebanon and shake your head with disgust. The cycle of violence and revenge continues in the Middle East, and American troops occupy a country right next door.

What should we do about it? Christopher Preble of the Cato Institute (quickly becoming my driver's manual when it comes to libertarianism) hits the nail on the head:

"While there is more than enough blame to go around, the U.S. government should be focused right now on providing safe passage out of the war zone for all Americans who wish to leave. Beyond these immediate concerns, American policymakers should avoid further entangling the United States in the conflict."

Time will tell how this plays out.

New

Hope everyone likes the new name and look. I've undergone major life changes within the past couple months and feel my blog should reflect these changes.

Look to Clinton

Clinton understood that for a progressive to be successful in a conservative country he had to convey the attitude that he respected the deeply held values of voters. He supported the death penalty, welfare reform and took a tough national security stance. He could discern the difference between a Pentecostal and a pretzel. Clinton realized that conservative success was dependent on the excesses of liberalism. Attitudinally, he trumped the right. And when he deviated from those attitudes, his Presidency suffered. (Marshall Whitman, Bull Moose)

The party of Pelosi and Kennedy wish it was 1929. They wish the American populace was in the grip of major economic disaster so that a newer New Deal could emerge and be implemented by a future President John Edwards. Bill Clinton was an absolute genius and he knew how to govern succesfully. Free trade, opportunity, responsibility were the way of the 1990's. The country actually took on the issue of a major entitlement and got results. Those were the days.

Bush has not bounced

Since the killing of Zarqawi on June 7th, the easily manipulated media has declared that we have somehow turned the corner in Iraq and the president has gotten a "bounce" in the polls.

Nonsense. The Iraq war is going as it has always gone: poorly. We are refereeing a sectarian civil war between Sunnis and Shiites. We are not fighting back old Baathists, they are gone or dead. Today's grim discovery of the two missing American soldiers bodies should cement in the collective head of America that we need to light a fire under the collective bottom of Iraq.

The Cato Insitute's Ted Galen Carpenter argues:

"Enough is enough. At some point, the Iraqi people need to stand on their own feet and decide whether they will cooperate in governing the country or whether they will wage an increasingly bloody sectarian war. If the choose the latter, America does not have a dog in that fight."

There have been several supposed milestones of Iraqi success: Saddam's overthrow, free elections, the deaths of Saddam's sons and now the killing of the number one terrorist in Iraq, a man who was starting to get under the skin of the majority of the Iraqi people. None of these events have actually produced the desired goal: the return of American troops to American soil.

Then again, we've been playing this game for quite some time. And with a president who's stated goal is the elimination of tyranny everywhere, don't expect a change in strategy.

Newt

In today's Washington Post, Newt Gingrich says he's ready:

"We have a choice between those who are failing to deliver and those who are unthinkable," he said, adding he would put "even money" on the Democrats taking back the House this fall. "Neither party currently is where the country is." (newt.org)

During the Clinton/Gingrich years, problems were solved. Most importantly, a major entitlement was reformed and has proven to be a success. So, yes I could see myself voting for Newt.

Powersurge

For all those who need a clear and scathing review of the constitutional record of George W. Bush, please read this document (pdf file) put together by the Cato Institute's Gene Healy and Timothy Lynch.

Realism in 08, please?

Jonathan Rauch has a overdue piece at Reason, worth reading only to understand that at some point in American history, we had presidents who lived in a fantasy free environment. Oh to be a fly on the wall during this:

"Kennedy was no revolutionary in foreign policy. Indeed, he was contempuous of idealistic reformers. Meeting on August 20, 1962, with his senior foreign-policy advisers, he read from a draft document describing a national counterinsurgency strategy. The United States, said Kennedy, reading aloud, seeks "to insure that modernization of the local society evolves in directions which will afford a congenial world environment for fruitful international cooperation and..for our way of life."

Kennedy's comment: "That's a lot of crap."

Sad

To the one person who reads this blog, thank you for your patience........

Now, on to the suicide deaths at Guantanamo Bay. It's hard to start a blog with this kind of sentence. Imagine, six years ago the very idea of prisoners, most of whom have no charges other than being "suspected of terrorist activity," and the ever popular "enemy combatants" being held in another country against their will, with no access to anything other than their own misery. Force fed, no trial, no way out, nothing. Then tell me what country this is. Yes, I understand the pressure the guards and the commanders are under in this kind of situation, and maybe this is the casualty of a war without end, but isn't this anything but a stain on the history of this country?

Thanks to Rumsfeld, we conduct war on the cheap and in total disregard of rules of humane warfare. Yet, Rumsfeld remains as Defense Secretary. Words truly fail me.

Am I missing something?

Apparently, Al Gore is causing some in the weather word to seriously lose their mind, consider a statement such as this:

"Gore believed in global warming almost as much as Hitler believed there was something wrong with the Jews."

Based on the fact that Al Gore wrote a book on the environment and has invested his time and money into global warming awareness it's safe to say he believes in global warming, more than most.

Global warming is a reality, how much energy and money we should put towards its elimination is another matter altogether.

Oh, and the lunatic who compared Gore to Hitler his name is meteorologist Bill Gray. (tip: lefty think tank Think Progress)

the final word on Al Gore

For the past few weeks, the punditry has been abuz about the possibility of a Gore candidacy in 2008; SNL, his movie, etc all proof he is poised to make a run.

My gut tells me he won't only he fears the beast that is Hillary Clinton. It's too bad, because Gore, unlike Bush is a stickler for details. America wants a president who is a stickler for details and policy. Despite his populist campaign in 2000, Gore at his heart is a southern moderate. He was the tiebreaking vote in 1993 that allowed the Clinton budget to go through without a single vote. Although progressive, the package seriously tackled the budget deficits we were facing, thus allowing the government to employ the "pay as you go" rules. Our current policy is pay some other time.

The Clinton/Gore team were deficit hawks and ultimately reduced the size of government. Welfare reform happened during the Clinton/Gore years. Now, there is no guarantee we would see the kind of Gore we saw in the 90's if assumed the presidency in 2009 but it's possible once in the White House he would make a swift move to the center. Based upon the Clinton/Gingrich blueprint, this is a good thing.

And no, I haven't seen his movie.

Government - your brother's keeper

Over at the Cato Insitute, Radley Balko has a sharp piece on the recent trend toward nanny statism, forstered lovingly by the Bush GOP.

It is truly scary the kind of power our current government wishes to assume for the american people. Because of our endless "War on Terror," we are sacrificing basic liberties when it comes to personal freedom. How again are we winning this fight?

A different view

I have been reading Andrew Sullivan's blog since 04, never have I been so captivated by his new idea called "The View from Your Window," recently introducted on his now legendary blog. Go and see it for yourself.

how much longer?

“We’ve got a good strategy,” the president said. “Whether or not it would work to perfection — you hope you never have to find out.” (George W. Bush)

Bush responding this morning to a question about the government's ability to be ready for a biological attack or a pandemic.

an opportunity

Paleocon Patrick Buchanan (missed him on the CSPAN broadcast of the Book expo) mulls the state of the Grand Old Party here.

TR worshipper Marshall Whitman believes "super serial" Al Gore will run for president, thus enabling Hillary Clinton to walk away with the nomination. Read his ruminations here.

On the topic of Al Gore, my only problem with someone who is obviously commited to something (the terror of global warming) is that he had his shot and he blew it. He let the campaign be dictated by the Bush agenda and let us own discomfort sink him, with a centrist, moderate agenda as a platform. If he runs, he will run as a populist and we do not need a populist (despite my blog's name).

no change

I'm not changing the name of this blog to suit my newfound ideology. You would think I should, but I won't just to throw people off.

By the way, all the progressives with their fingers crossed hoping for a sweeping Democratic victory in November ask yourselves this question:

"What will we do when we're in?

the numbers

Over at Cato@Liberty, the Cato Institute's blog, John Samples breaks down the future for Libertarians as a electoral force.

creeping

towards libertarianism.......

The past six years of the Bush era has resulted in a hardening of my initial progressive beliefs (more government good, less government bad). I approached the Bush administration with a mixture of contempt and snobbery. Let's just say the contempt has carried through.

George Bush has failed every major test put before him. He has failed to rally the nation against an external foe (terrorists) and has failed in basic governance (responding to major crisis). Some believe Bush should have asked of America what FDR asked of America during WWII, proposing national service against jihadism. Instead, Bush has asked nothing of this country other than to ponder life without him.

The liberal American Prospect magazine featured on their cover a striding Bush with the caption "The most dangerous President." Bush is dangerous not to the world, but his own citizens. He wishes to strip every liberty away in his failed pursuit of Al-Qaeda. Identity cards, secret wiretaps, secret military tribunals, and yes everyone's favorite: torture. This is the vision of lunatics who just need to control everything.

In short, the presidency of Bush has surgically removed me from liberalism and its tired cliches. Liberty matters now and as it should. We should be free from roving government at all costs. Instead of hardening my convictions of a progressive America, I only wish for freedom from incompetent and snooping government.

Goodbye Galbraith, hello Freidman.

no friend of liberty

"In times of war, there is always a delicate balance between security and liberty. And we must be vigilant that certain lines are not crossed. Keep in mind, however, that great Democratic Presidents such as FDR, Truman, JFK and LBJ approved and implemented far more intrusive intelligence programs in the interest of national security."

- Marshall Whitman, on his blog bull moose.

No one wants Al Qaeda wiped from the earth as much as yours truly. But can't we reevaluate how we can get to this point? Do we have to point to Democratic presidents as a litmus test for what is liberty infringing? Try this on for size: maybe they were wrong. FDR was wrong for interning Japanese Americans during WWII. Truman was wrong for declaring himself above the law during the steel workers strike. JFK and LBJ wrong for putting the nation of Vietnam before the interests of America.

They were wrong. Bush is wrong for stooping to this level. Period.

he's a loudmouth punk

He being the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Excellent piece about the radical history of this man in the past issue of The New Republic. He is a child of the rebellion, a reminder of the extreme ways of the Shah.

What he is not is a threat to the United States. He is playing a game, and we are willing participants. The Bush/Rove machine (well, Bush if Rove gets indicted) will use Iran as a bludgeoning tool on the Democratic Party, and it will work once again.

Iran does not have nor will it have a nuclear weapon in the near future. War with Iran is suicide and will result in the deaths of thousands of Iraqis and American troops in the region. A true leader would speak to the Iranian president face to face. JFK met with Khrushchev. Reagan met with a much friendlier Gorbachev. Great presidents, even good presidents act presidential in these moments.

Bush would rather respond through subordinates.

68%

......this is the percentage of Americans who believe this country is worse off today than it was before Bush became president. Story here.

No pity. I have none to offer the portion of the electorate who refused to honestly look at the record of George W. Bush before giving him a passing grade in November of 2004. In 2004 we still had no plan to leave Iraq or for that matter to stabilize it. We still don't. Much is unchanged about the state of the nation as it was in late 2004.

The question is, if a sitting president is this unpopular, what can be done to replace him. It seems extremely unfair that a majority of the country must continue to live under the presidency of George W. Bush.

Carter vs Bush

I'll take Carter, sweater and all.

Bush's poll numbers are causing many a commentator to compare the heir to a political dynasty to a peanut farmer.

Jimmy Carter was a political victim of forces beyond his control. In the eyes of a majority of americans he was not fit to handle the numerous crisis during his term, most damaging being the hostage crisis where Carter took an overtly cautious approach in the vein of JFK during the Cuban missle crisis, difference was the results. There has never been a more decent human being to occupy the White House as most historians have written. The presidency is sometimes best reserved for ruthless men.

Bush is ruthless. Bush grants himself powers never dreamed of by the framers of the Constitution. Bush ignores international law as well as domestic. Bush has made fashionable the radical Wilsonesque doctrine of preemptive war.

Bush's numbers are in the toilet because his failures are all encompassing.

"a damp"

The term used to describe then presidential candidate Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1932 due to Roosevelt's indecision on the Prohibition issue. Jonathan Alter of Newsweek magazine has a new book entitled "The Defining Moment: FDR's Hundred Days and the Triumph of Hope," in which FDR's rise from unknown to legendary president is chronicled and the aforementioned fact is noted.

What a giant of a man. As most historians are starting to understand, FDR's New Deal was not a quick fix to the Great Depression and many of its programs were in their infancy under Herbert Hoover, however no president did more to lift the general welfare of the common man than FDR. Alter's book on the top of my reading list this summer. I can't wait.

oh by the way

Born today in 1968, Timothy McVeigh - terrorist.

Duped

The United States of America has been duped.

On November 4, 2004 a majority of the public chose to re-elect a man who lied to their face. Not that we needed Tyler Drumheller to tell us the administration ignored all evidence about WMD before invading Iraq, most of us already knew that. It's just that now we're getting around to the facts.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq is going to cripple us for years to come. What do Bush and Rove care? They achieved the desired result: re-election.

Alive

John Kerry is right:
"Osama Bin Laden is loose today because we allowed him to escape at Tora Bora," Kerry today on "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos.

Not withstanding any of the numerous other times we had a chance to capture this murderous bastard, Kerry is the only one speaking to the truth on this issue. Iraq might not be Bush's legacy, Bin Laden could be.

Kerry spoke to this several times during the campaign of 2004. If he makes it a major theme of a presidential run, he should be the winner, despite Hillary's billions. I was absolutely proud to have voted for the Kerry/Edwards ticket. Kerry is a intelligent, competent man, Edwards the more compassionate of the two. Yes, on November 5th 2004, I hastily ripped off my Kerry/Edwards bumper sticker in anger. But with Kerry shooting back into the limelight (probably in response to all the attention Feingold is getting) America should realize its lost opportunity.

Can we imagine Tim McVeigh living freely among us after committing his heinous act in Oklahoma City? Well, Osama bin Laden is making video tapes, apparently still breathing the foul air he occupies.

Populism is back

Thank God. According to polls conducted by USA Today, this country has had enough of neoconservatist foreign policy and globalist trade policy.

It started with Woodrow Wilson and will end with George W. Bush. Or will it? None of the GOP "favorites" have broken with the president on his singular, defining characteristic of his presidency: preemption. We will not wait to be attacked, but attack first, evidence later. "The world must be made safe for democracy" said President Wilson in a address to Congress in 1919.

This statement capitulated us into WWI and we haven't looked back since. John McCain believes in the Bush doctrine, so do Allen, Frist and Romney. Conservatives will not have a choice in 2008 worth a damn.

The Democratic Party will nominate Hillary Clinton, another hawk who believes we should forcibly disarm Iran, a country without any nukes. Progressive Populism's only hope is in Russ Feingold, a man who is unabashedly progressive and principled. Censure? Censure should have been on the table when the President lied about WMD to get us into the snakes lair that is Iraq.

What about the right? Will a silent populist like Buchanan throw his hat into the ring? On his site, American Cause, Buchanan lays out the case for true conservatism:

"What does old-time conservatism stand for? Limited government. Balanced budgets. A defense second to none. Secure borders. A trade policy that puts America and Americans first. And a foreign policy that keeps us out of wars that are not America's wars."

Although debatable, this sounds awful good to me and the rest of this country.

It's up to Congress

I am one voice. Every blogger who is against this Iran hype should be heard. However, in tomorrow's NY Times, Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism chief lays the cards on the table:

"Congress must not permit the administration to launch another war whose outcome cannot be known, or worse, known all too well." (reuters.com)

it's official

Is there now any doubt that this president puts loyalty before country? Rumsfeld has been a disaster since day one (remember Old Europe?) and has overseen the freefall of credibility on the national stage.

Career generals say he has to go. Foreign policy experts, military analysts, everyone on the planet all say he should resign or be fired. Were we expecting a different reaction that the one we got today from the president? He will hunker down and defend the indefensible. How many lives have been lost due to Rumsfeld's negligence? None of this matters to Bush. He's gotta stick to his guns.

These people are dangerous.

imminent?

"The ability to slightly enrich uranium is not the same as the ability to build a bomb. For the latter, you need at least 80% enrichment, which in turn would require about 16,000 small centrifuges hooked up to cascade. Iran does not have 16,000 centrifuges. It seems to have 180. Iran is a good ten years away from having a bomb, and since its leaders, including Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei, say they do not want an atomic bomb because it is Islamically immoral, you have to wonder if they will ever have a bomb."

Middle East expert (for I am not) Juan Cole on his blog today.

Rice, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are liars.

The Un-War

This is going to be on my reading list very, very soon. Key bit of information:

Charles Pena argues that the war in Iraq is but one misstep in the Bush administration's "global war on terror." Terrorism is simply a tactic, however, not an enemy. Trying to eradicate it is a quixotic quest that does not focus on those responsible for 9/11. (courtesy potomac books inc)

it's called precedent

On this date in 1951, President Harry Truman relieves General Douglas MacArthur of overall command in Korea.

And Truman's approval numbers were much lower. Somewhere around where Cheney's are now. We are not dealing with a president who makes changes for the good of the country. Rumsfeld must be fired now.

A Vice President we can all be proud of!

Firedoglake has the goods on the boos heard round the world. When your popularity is somewhere in the 20's you have to expect this.

Simply put, the american public are stuck with these two for another three years and they are not happy about it.

I've never linked to firedoglake before and I should be ashamed.

Hershified

Seymour, that is. Writer of great, important pieces on government sneaking and planning. Listen, as long as Cheney is still in the game, this will continue. Bush is a follower, devoid of any reason and logic, as long as he's told this will keep GOP seats he's in for the long haul.

Hersh, appearing on Hardball today called Mahmoud Ahmadinejad what he truly is: a big mouth kid, who the mullah's keep in line. Sounds like Hitler to me.

I gotta say, this conservative revolt on the idea of Bush is really quite hilarious. To me, the choice on election day November 4 was a no-brainer. Did George W. Bush suddenly turn incompetent after the disgrace that was Katrina? Andrew Sullivan seems to think so. During the campaign six years ago it was apparent to all those with eyesight and hearing that he was laughable and unprepared to govern. That a large majority of American now understands this clearly is really sad. And I know, I'm not supposed to be talking about Bush anymore in this space. Sorry.

Plamegate returns

Every day is another shred of evidence that in November of 2004 the american people put their faith and support behind a man who authorizes leaks, sanctions torture, randomly breaks the law as he sees fit, signs statments that negate signed legislation and is unprepared to govern at critical junctures.

This would be grounds for a vote of no confidence in a parlimentary system. A large majority of the country either dislikes or distrusts their current president and on a daily basis have to read more proof they are right.

John Kerry was on both CNN and MSNBC this afternoon discussing his future as a candidate. Can anyone dispute that a President Kerry would have us remain in Iraq? Can I say for certain, of course not, but what an improvement it would be, even my fellow conservatives would have to agree at this point. Kerry's loss was the closest since Kennedy/Nixon, rarely has a country paid for its last minute indecision.

There really is nothing to seriously analyze here about the president's role in the leak. This is how they operate. They don't represent you and I. Their focus in 2003 was continuing their control of a government that barely know how to operate.

So, at this point, George W. Bush is irrelevant, a lame duck in the starkest of terms. We are simply adrift waiting for either another preemptive war or more drip drop secrets revealed in the waning moments of a presidency.

And so it began

The birth of neoconservatism began today, April 2nd in 1917 with President Woodrow Wilson asking Congress to declare war against Germany, saying "The world must be made safe for democracy."

Full text of Wilson's speech here.

Feingold's lonely quest

Censure hearings this past Friday offered up this quote by Russ Feingold, perhaps the quote of the year:

"If we in the Congress don't stand up for ourselves and for the American people, we have become complicit in the lawbreaking. A resolution of censure is the appropriate response, even a modest approach," he said. (courtesy sfgate.com)

Please explain to me the problem with this censure and why only four Democrats have lent their support. Seems to me this happened in 2002 and they got creamed.

Next!

Joseph Cirincione's article here is a must read on the realities of Bush and Iran.

Can anyone say deja vu? Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice will soon lead us on yet another campaign of folly in another Arab country. We are playing right into the hands of Al-Qaeda.

Neoconservatism is still kicking it seems.

Um......

Every single cable news channel presents today's Card/Bush/Bolten event as a "major shake up." Excuse me, am I missing something here? A man volunteers his resignation to the president and we have an earth shattering sign of things to come in this White House? A spring cleaning?

Um, no.

It's not hard to imagine this president over the weekend, suggesting to Andrew Card that maybe he needs a break from the rigors of managing the most ineffective public relations president of all time and nudges him to start off the week with an announcement. Then proceed to replace Mr Card with another insider, one who has managed to lead us to financial ruin.

Mr President, let me know when you have publicly fired Donald Rumsfeld.

Hillary - Warmonger?

If you get a chance, either pick up the latest issue of American Conservative (yes, Buchanan's mag) for the front cover story: Hillary the Hawk.

The truth needs to be told about Hillary's apparent belief in the Bush doctrine.

Or...you could just read it here.

Russ' gift to the Democrats

Since the National Review likes to term Feingold's resolution as a "gift to the GOP," i'd like to stress the opposite has been done. Once again, a bold, principled Democrat has come out and given the Democratic Party a chance to literally become the opposition party. It happened with Murtha in November of last year and its happening again.

Let's make this clear: if you at all a smidgen progressive and care about America then your choice is clearly going to be Feingold if he runs. Everyone else is a waste of your time.

A reminder

Andrew Sullivan reminds us about the things done in the name of America, how we have morphed into our enemy and our former enemies.

There was a time in our history when we we not defined by torture and preemptive war.

9 trillion

...the new debt ceiling thanks to this president's signature.

What are the proposed uses for this gargantuan sum of extra money? One word: Iraq.

Think about this for a minute. Ponder the things this country could have done with all the funds that have been allocated to a foreign country under our control. Does freedom for the Iraqi people cost this much? Is it a wise investment? Neoconservatism thinks so, its only the beginning, for if John McCain secures the nomination in 2008 we will see a number of countries fall to our tyranny ending campaign to save the world on the backs of the American taxpayer.

Exactly when will the shit hit the fan? When will there be a massive tax increase on the middle to lower class as well as the elimination of one or more programs vital to this country? My prediction is sometime in late 2009 when the populace, already exhausted from juggling work and family will see a substantial portion of their income withdrawn to fund neoconservatism wargames.

Sorry for the long stretches without a post, I'm trying to frame this blog around something other than Bush and incompetence.

Bush doctrine version 2.0

"If neccesary, however, under long-standing principles of self defense, we do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack." (Washinton Post)

From Bush's reaffirmation of his own foolish doctrine, set to be released tommorow. Take a deep breath, it going to be a scary two years.

Thanks Tom

Populist Tom Harkin has signed on the censure resolution authored by Russ Feingold. (tip: Think Progress)

He sees the NSA wiretapping for what it is: an abuse of presidential powers.

No more war

This is a warning to neoconservatism: no war in Iran.

Don't even think about it. We cannot afford it; mentally and fiscally. Put away the war drums. Watch "Why we Fight," rip up your copy of the Bush doctrine and stay quiet for a while. We cannot end tyranny everywhere. We cannot even manage our own government with the slightest of competence.

Memo to America: a president Kerry would be securing our ports with vigor.

Back on track

The folks over at the pro torture National Review have certainly gone back to type haven't they?

Hurrah

Hurrah to nativism. Hurrah to America first. Horray to isolationism.

Thank you Lou Dobbs.

During the ports debacle, it was 70 percent of the country vs Bush. A hefty majority against the what truly can be called the comfortable, elitist punditry. People such as Andrea Mitchell who lamented on Hardball about the signals sent to the world if this deal sunk. People like David Brooks and Tom Freidman who likened 70 percent of the country to the Klan in its protectionism.

Dobbs was the only one on any station who spoke to this issue clearly. This administration values "free trade" more than american tradition and security. NAFTA and its like have slowly killed this country. Back in the nineties, in the comfort of my parents home, Clintonism and NAFTA seemed a reasonable proposition. Now, as a member of an underpaid, struggling workforce things are becoming clearer and clearer. We need a america focused president.

Can you name the Senator who opposed not only the Patriot Act, but NAFTA as well? Who also happened to display reasoned judgement in voting for Chief Justice John Roberts.

Feingold. He is the only politician on the planet who looks like a winner these days.

Detached

Try to read the following quote from Mary Landrieu in today's Washington Post without retching:

Mary Landrieu pursed her lips "Senator Feingold has a point that he wants to make," she said, "We have a point that we want to make, talking about the budget."

Yes, talking about the budget certainly has positioned the Democratic Party as the opposition party. Read the entire article to see your potential nominees for president in 2008 (Hillary, Kerry etc).

Attention, you are now leaving Hillaryland.

Go here and either contribute or become aware of the only Democrat in existence who cares about anything.

Cowardice

As with the initial vote on the recently renewed Patriot Act Russ Feingold is the only Democrat in this entire country who has some semblance of a spine. Per today's Newsday, no Democrat will get behind the needed censure of this president.

Cowards. From Reid to Pelosi, Lieberman was a given on this issue. We are not talking about articles of impeachment here nor are we in the midst of the Hague. Here is the resolution:

"Resolved that the United States Senate does hereby censure George W. Bush, President of the United States, and does condemn his unlawful authorization of wiretaps of Americans within the United States without obtaining the court orders required."

This is just a snippet. This president should consider himself lucky the opposition is so willing to live and let die. This has been happening for the entire Bush presidency. It happened during the Kerry candidency, it most likely will happen in 2006 and 2008.

On top of that, we haven't done this since 1834! We certainly can't do it now! At no more a point in time in this nation's history with the majority of the American people in disapproval of this president, a censure resolution is needed. Are the Democrats not reading these polls? Are they enlisting the services of Dick Morris again? The man who sabotaged the Clinton presidency? Listen to the electorate: WE DON'T APPROVE OF GEORGE W BUSH AS PRESIDENT.

UPDATE: 36 percent approval rating for this president and the Democratic Party is still in shambles.

UPDATE 2: Over at Angry Bear, there has been an endorsement of the Feingold way.

Breaching and topping

Over at the Y files, Cathy Young debates the meaning of "breach." It's pretty clear to me that the response to Hurricane Katrina was the worst failure since 9/11 by the federal government, proof Bush and Co care only about lofty rhetoric than real action.

Give me some time to comment on this whole straw man contest down in Memphis. Seems to me the choice for die hard Repubs are clear: continue with the Bush doctrine or not. McCain is already proving to the nation that he is a Bush clone, albeit more competent. My choice on the GOP side if I had a say would be, well no one. Every person from Condi to Guiliani have no domestic credentials and offer nothing to the American public but more of the same. Spare me the talk about Giuliani, one day does not a president make.

political goner

According to this newly released poll, Bush and GOP are done like dinner come November. When 60% of the electorate believes you can no longer govern, you are irrelevant.

When in doubt, call him Hitler

"Hitler, too, prophesied the annihilation of the Jews, saying that a world war would result in the "annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe." Most treated this as empty bluster. The history of genocide in the modern era is that, in the rare instances that political leaders publicly threaten to annihilate enemy peoples, they mean it."

This is a new piece in the New Republic by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen (tip: DLC'er Bull Moose). Let's make this clear:

Iran - nowhere near a nuke and an insignificant army.

Nazi Germany - massive, dominating military which rolled across Europe with ease.

Realism please

Some people are a little late to the party huh?

The pile on George W Bush has begun in his own club. People like George Will, Pat Buchanan, William Kristol etc are churning out opinion on Iraq and the Bush presidency as a whole. He was supposed to be the guy to return us to Reaganism again. Remember Reaganism? Secret wars, disdain for the working class, a yuppie gilded age. At least Reagan could sell his brand. Bush sold conservatism down the river and potentially into the wilderness for at least four years.

Yours truly is not a conservative on the domestic front. The people matter to me, the people that are losing once secure jobs to outsourcing and "free trade." When given a choice, conservatism always sides with the plutocrat each and every time. Conservatives want small government, no matter the cost. Progressives want government to work for people who want it. Because of the Bush presidency, both conservatives and liberals will be hard pressed to get anything they want in the coming years for the adventure of neoconservatism in Iraq has drained the governments ability to even respond to disasters at home let alone a fiscal reorganization.

Let the pile on continue.

Bushie, you did a crappy job

What more can be said about Katrina and its aftermath. Plenty.

This White House is a bundle of contradictions, during the Katrina hearings you couldn't get this crew to hand over pertinent stuff. Now, after the release of the Bush tape in which he is clearly frustrated over his lack of brush clearing time, the GOP release their own tape somehow showing Bush was on the ball.

Listen, I didn't believe the red herring about the levees not being funded as a reason for New Orleans ruin, but at some point you have to say enough is enough. To me , this was a no brainer:

Large catastrophic storm coming
Respected weatherman says levees might not hold
Levees don't hold, New Orleans inundated with water
Federal government doesn't respond until four days later
POTUS says "we couldn't have anticipated the levees breaking"

No one thought planes would be used as weapons, no one thought there would be no WMD, no one thought the levees would break, no one actually believed I could govern. I don't hate this man, just pity him.

UPDATE: The folks at Liberal Oasis expound on my passage above.

Duped into war

Thanks to the reporting of Murray Waas of the National Journal we can now finally saw without a shadow of a doubt that this country was duped into entering a preemptive war of choice. Bush and Co clearly made false statements throughout 2002 and 2003 that conflicted with the information they were getting from experts on Saddam and WMD.

The president's supporters, namely the die hard neoconservatives still clinging to this president will give us the standard "we couldn't take a risk" load of garbage. Neoconservatism doesn't mind risks and guesses as long as its goal is fulfilled: experimental democracy by force. And guess what? It's time for a little bit of hindsight is 20/20 time on the strongest of believers in a democratic Iraq. How many pages and pages in both print and the blogosphere have been wasted on this country?

Now don't get me wrong, when Iraq crumbles under the weight of its past you won't find me rubbing my hands together with glee, however it will be confirmation that the disease to America that is neoconservatism is in critical condition.

Wonder if Christopher Hitchens is still wearing his Iraqi flag pin.

Discovering Cash

I didn't know very much about Johnny Cash before watching "Walk the Line" last night. Now I want to know everything about this legend. This film is fantastic with performances that are nothing less than legendary by Phoenix and Witherspoon.

Forget the love story (it is a powerful story), it's the music that drives this picture, or maybe the promise of it. We get to see Cash scrap his way to the top. The scene that stands out for me is his first show on his first tour and the band breaking into "Get Rhythm," one of his earliest rockabilly hits. Cash's music is so incredibly easy to get into because its so simple and honest.

About a month ago, I picked up the Essential Johnny Cash for $.99 at a local cd shop as a prep as I knew I would want to see this movie when it came out. Best 99 cents I ever spent. Cash was the man and I am honoring him by wearing black for the rest of my life.

infiltrated by Al-Qaeda

Think progress has the scoop here on the UAE and the number one terrorist organization in the world.

Kill this deal now.

He lied

Andrew Sullivan thinks Bush either lied when he said he never anticipated the levee's would break or he was sleeping through the newly released video of his video conference calls with FEMA.

I vote for the former. This is a president who is detached from actual governance. He can't be expected to stop a hurricane now can he? For God's sake he was on vacation strumming that guitar! And I must say I look at this past summer's favorite scapegoat Michael Brown in a whole different light. He was up against a brick wall in Bush. Consider me duped this past summer as I following the lead of people like Michelle Malkin and berated Brown in these pages.

How will this be spun by the usual suspects? Need I remind them of the floating bodies and abandoned people on their rooftops.

Iraq - land of peace

Just read this passage from ABC's interview with Bush tonight:

VARGAS: Let's move to Iraq. This has been a rough few days in Iraq since the bombing of the mosque in Samarra. There's been a lot of sectarian violence. What is the policy if, in fact, a civil war should break out or the sectarian violence continues? Are you willing to sacrifice American lives to get the Sunnis and the Shiites to stop killing each other?

BUSH: I don't buy your premise that there's going to be a civil war. There's no question that the bomber of the mosque is trying to create sectarian violence, and there's no question there was reaction to it. On the other hand, I had the duty, which I did, to call these leaders, Shi'a and Sunni leaders, as well as Kurdish leaders. And the response was that we understand this is a moment that we've got to make a choice if we're going to have sectarian strife or whether or not we're going to unify. And I heard loud and clear that they understand that they're going to choose unification, and we're going to help them do so.

VARGAS: But what is the plan if the sectarian violence continues? I mean, do the U.S. troops take a larger role? Do they step in more actively to stop the violence?

BUSH: No. The troops are chasing down terrorists. They're protecting themselves and protecting the people, and — but a major function is to train the Iraqis so they can do the work. I mean the ultimate success in Iraq —

My bolding. Mr President, when rival factions fight and blow each other up, that's called civil war. Not sure why I bothered to read what amounts to more of the same.

UAE vs Dobbs

Proof that he is doing his job right. (thanks: crooksandliars)

Chris Matthews of course is taking the "what's all the hullabaloo about?" angle.

34%

This is the president's approval rating according to a new CBS News poll here.

Bush is incompetent, untrustworthy, unconcerned about his own electorate and detached from reality. On every issue, he does not have the confidence of the american people.

Lou Dobbs

I used to think Lou Dobbs was a big worry wart. Now, with his laser like focus on this ports debacle it is clear to me and I would think many americans he is on the side of this country and against the Bush plutocrat agenda of big trade at all costs.

This issue should not die. It should be repeated nightly on every news broadcast. It's what we've all known about Bush, he is a die hard believer in profit over security. Today we learn through Susan Collins of Maine (tip: think progress) that the Coast Guard had problems with this deal. Scott McClellan, the human incarnate of a jelly donut, came out and said no one had problems with this, just like he said no one in the administration leaked the name of Valerie Plame.

It now, after five years, is becoming clearer and clearer to regular, non partisan americans that Bush and Co have sold the US government to the highest bidder while going off on tyranny ending adventures in foreign countries at my great grandchildren's expense. I will echo what Brad Delong on this blog has been saying for a while:

Impeach George W Bush. Impeach Dick Cheney. Do it now.

Doesn't even matter if it makes sense or is impractial or unlikely, just try.

what about the schools, the schools!

Over at Angry Bear, a

Withdraw

Realist John Murtha speaks on Iraq. (tip:huffpost)

In contrast tonight, as a reader on huffpost pointed out, Richard Perle one of the original neocons who pressed for this war was on Hardball and declared there is no civil war and we should continue to stay the course until the Iraq government decides they are up to the task of defending their own country.

Realism vs Fantasy.

Cronyist national security

As always, Lou Dobbs has taken up the mantle on this port deal this evening on CNN. He has consistently taken the side of the american worker in the face of a growing threat by outside influences. This P&O port deal is once again an example of the Bush administration putting their powerful friends before the national security of this country and that's why Dems and Repubs are in opposition to this.

Imagine a Dubei employee infiltrating one of the ports and he happens to be an Al-Qaeda operative. He now has access to the entire port and its cargo. Why does this make sense? It is not racist or "islamophobic" to conclude this deal is not in the best interests of this country. Can we please start thinking about what makes sense for the workers of the United States of America.

Bush cannot tell the difference between a British owned company and one who is the home of two of the 9/11 hijackers and has been an unwilling ally when it comes to Bin Laden and money laundering. Then again, should we be surprised that the Bushies are thinking of pleasing their gilded Arab friends as opposed to the every day american worker? Bush is the new plutocrat, a man who has no clue what it is like to hold a decent paying job and then lose it in a snap to a foreign entity. And then to be held accountable for his secretive, backroom policies is like asking a child who stumbles over his words.

As with everything else, this crew does this all behind the back of Congress and the public. Shall we make a list?

torture policy
detention policy
warrantless wiretapping
energy policy
environmental policy
economic policy
and now national security in relation to the ports of the USA

Nah, we don't need a populist.

the first presidential communicator

No one could call Calvin Coolidge, the nation's 29th president isolated. 82 years ago today, Coolidge delivered a major speech from the White House via radio, a new medium at the time, could we see the current president start his own blog?

Nightmare

Not too long ago I posted of the possible likelihood of a Cheney run for the presidency in 2008. Apparently I am not alone in the world in thinking this, exhibit A from today's mysa.com covering a speech from Bob Woodward:

He noted that Republicans have a long track record of nominating "old war horses."

Given that, and depending on how things in Iraq proceed, "You're going to think I'm crazy, but you heard it here first. I think they could nominate Dick Cheney."

A Dick Cheney presidency would be an unmitigated disaster on every level, who better to continue the Bush doctrine?

Argumentum ad Hitlerum

Pat Buchanan, right wing populist, punches a hole in the war drums of the neoconservative movement in regards to Iran. As I've said on this blog before, Ahmadinejad is not Hitler, nor will he ever be and to even insist this is an affront against all Jewish people.

Buchanan hits the nail on the head with this statement:

"The United States, without losing a plane, could make the country uninhabitable with one B-2 flyover and few MX and Trident missles."

Not one nuclear warhead was launched during the entire Cold War, part of this was luck and destiny but another part was the measured foreign policy of JFK along with the steely nerve of Ronald Reagan (took me a while to understand this), both lacked the fanatical desire for war that has infiltrated the conservative ranks including the president.

Yes, the Iranian leader has made ridiculous statements regarding the Holocaust that all americans should take offense to. However, this is not a reason for yet another war, one that will stretch the american military to the breaking point and stir up dust where it doesn't need to be stirred. Buchanan goes on to say:

"Instead of whining about how they were misled into Iraq, why don't Democrats try to stop this new war before it starts?"

Instead, they are jumping all over this UAE port story to place themselves squarely to the right of the president, combine this with Evan Byah and his shameful demogogary on Iran and we have a Democratic party who is all huff and no puff. Oh, did I forget the standard bearer of triangulation Hillary Clinton?

We need a foreign policy that combines a confidence in our military might with reason and pragmatism. Neoconservatism is the antithesis of reason and pragmatism. It desires to create problems where none exist, to reshape the world as global utopia, free for all who inhabit it. The elections this November and 2008 are referendums on this pathetic ideology.

You didn't say you were going to do that!

Voters want change, only if the person elected doesn't really follow through. This is not what Dr. Satish Mohan has done since being elected Amherst town supervisor. He has proposed hiring freezes and cost cutting. He even, for the love of God, signs each check every town employee receives to make sure things are on the up and up.

For all the above, many feel Mohan should be impeached or recalled. Dr Mohan's response?

"Let the people re-vote, but if they throw me out, the dream of change will go from this town forever." "These are the people who are entrenched," They are against change. "

Mohan is a reformer. This is why he was elected. He actually approaches his role in the way it was meant: save the town money.

Now it makes sense.

Just maybe

Just maybe he will change, maybe.

This is the point made by Nicholas Kristof in today's NY Times (sub required). Since the shame of Katrina, various pundits have actually considered that this president may change course and actually become a representative of the public who reelected him. The shining example Kristof uses is Ronald Reagan after Iran-Contra, Reagan fired a couple people and went on television and said he has sorry. The public believed him and his popularity went threw the roof.

Bush is different. A clear majority of the public rates this president poorly on every matter. They are finally after six years coming to grips with what the Bush era means. They were sold into Iraq, sold into Bush being a different politician and most of all sold into the idea of Bush being a likeable "have a beer with him" kid of guy.

Bush will not change, ever. He will not fire Rumsfeld, leave Iraq anytime in the near future (enough to where it makes a difference) and suddenly become a pragmatist. Kristof points to the 2000 primaries as proof Bush can switch gears; um, that's what you do when you get creamed, if you want to win you steal your opponent's best lines.

Point is, punditry has filled many a space with ruminations that Bush can and will change. Forget it. Stick with what you know NY Times, WMD.

in the trenches

From what i'm gathering from today's talk shows, the Repub line on the NSA warrantless searches is "It's constitutional." They won't confirm this for the american public through a review of some sort, its the same ol "trust us" crap they have been peddling since 9/11. Trust us to not torture, trust us to do the right thing in Iraq, trust us to not spy on american citizens without a warrant or probable cause.

This endless parade of garbage will not end unless the majority of the american public gets really adament about putting an end to this. Maybe they are waiting for November to unleash their wrath on the GOP or maybe they really do think these things have to be put up with in the name of the WOT.

Collapse

So much for these moderate Repubs, once again Cheney works in the shadows.

Declassifying classified classifications

Thanks to historians we have this.

Give me a Harry Truman

"Now everybody likes to have low taxes, but we must reduce the national debt in times of prosperity. And when tax relief can be given, it ought to go to those who need it most, and not those who need it least, as this Republican rich man's tax bill did when they passed it over my veto on the third try.The first one of these was so rotten that they couldn't even stomach it themselves. They finally did send one that was somewhat improved, but it still helps the rich and sticks a knife into the back of the poor. "

- President Truman in his acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention in 1948.

Can you imagine any present day Democrat speaking so clearly on the issue of tax cuts and income redistribution? Kerry? Clinton? Dean?

a few things

My friend on the right, neo-neocon brought to our attention the special Nightline program on the existence of the Saddam Hussein tapes. Turns out, they were not so much a smoking gun as just more proof he was sly little fox. Talking in the 90's about how he is working on some weapons doesn't exactly scream imminent threat does it? When we invaded in 2003 he had no WMD's, hard to swalllow huh?

This hunting story would be dead in the water if Cheney didn't operate (ha, get it!) the way he does in a shroud of secrecy. When Byron York and Peggy Noonan are calling you out, you've really screwed up.

Speaking of Cheney, to the people who are clamoring for a Democratic victory this November in order to get the impeachment train moving, are you nuts? Ladies and Gentleman: President Cheney. Also, is it really so inconceivable that Cheney wouldn't run for the presidency in 08? He is the VP of a two termer and really the only devoted future standard bearer of the Bush doctrine (McCain would fudge to much).

Thanks to Salon online we once again see where our tax dollars went; the torture and humiliation of Arab men in a Muslim country. Blood sprayed walls, naked men, lesions, chemicals, human pyramids and crushed bodies. This is not a few bad apples, this is the stated policy of the United States military under the criminal Don Rumsfeld, whose continued employment will be one pondered over in the history books.

Malkin Watch

Yes, she's back, everyone's favorite internment loving right winger. Her reaction on the release of the new Abu Gharib photos, photos that should shame every american into demanding our exit from Iraq immediately.

Memo to Malkin: graphic photos that depict real events are not the same as cartoons.

at least someone has the guts

Well, it's a principled senator against the Democratic establishment. Democrats, stand behind Senator Feingold and you'll be winners.

Third Party

Over at brendan nyhan's blog there is a politically tantalizing post on the possibility of a third party candidate crashing the hopes of John McCain in 2008. Like the Democratic Party, the GOP soul is looking for a populist to bring them home. Will they choose someone who is going to continue the folly of the Bush doctrine?

that nasty thing in the corner

That is Abu-Gharib. Here's a refresher.

UPDATE: MSNBC has run the Australian story including the new pictures. It is of the utmost importance that the public is reminded of what we, not Saddam Hussein have done in Iraq using their taxpayer dollars.

Apocolypse Now

"But one thing is quite the same, and that is his thought: without victory, there is no survival. I believe that we are actually fighting for the survival of the Western world of the Enlightenment, of the protection of human rights, and of respect for all of humankind. If those ideals are sometimes violated by the West--and there is no doubt whatsoever that they are--these are nothing as to what would occur if jihadist Islamicists were triumphant."

From the blog neo-neocon. This perfectly captures the paranoid worldview of neoconservatism. The Enlightened West is in danger? And then there is always the comparision of Nazism and Hitlter to Al-Qaeda. It is a disgrace and insult (as one of Jewish descent) to compare wayward Saudis hoping to meet Allah with the death march of Nazism. I'm at my wits end with this tired comparison.

Shhh...

This whole Cheney duck hunting story has got major legs for one reason: secrecy. Cheney is a disciple of the "the more the people don't know the better" school of thought, in fact he has based his entire political career on it.

Back when he was picked to be VP in 2000 to today's events, Cheney has displayed an almost cavalier disregard for honesty. He has made this quite clear in the five years he has been Vice President. To Cheney, government only needs to know your business not the other way around. So, we have a president who wants a fiefdom and a VP who operates in the shadows. Boy, am I glad we have a representative government!

Nuff said

The 78-year-old lawyer who was shot by Vice President Dick Cheney in a hunting accident has some birdshot lodged in his heart and he had a "minor heart attack," a hospital official said Tuesday. (AP)

Duck hunt

Apparently James Wolcott agrees with my assessment on the whole Hardball/Chris Matthews/Alan Simpson segment last night (not that I actually spoke to Mr. Wolcott or he even knows I exist).

Bush SOTU failure

Go to mysterypollster today for indepth analysis of Bush's SOTU failure. Failure in that it didn't give him any traction amongst the electorate. It's not hard to figure out why:

1) People know Bush, either you like him or you don't.
2) There was nothing to indicate that he will change, ever.
3) It's still going to be a hard, long slog in Iraq.
4) Energy independence? yeah right.
5) Every word is draped with cliche and derision.

So in the end, despite previous presidents getting some benefit from their respective SOTU's, Bush is once again making presidential history.

Beat those drums

Today we get this from Marshall Whittman (aka Bull Moose):

The story of the day that should have been the talk of the nation, and indeed the world was the one that hardly received a mention - it was buried in the back pages - Iran is one step closer to possessing a nuclear weapon. The Washington Post,"PARIS, Feb. 13 -- Iran reportedly has begun small-scale uranium enrichment, an initial step in the long process toward making civilian fuel or nuclear weapons, according to Western diplomats pushing for international action against Tehran."

The world will soon forget the Cheney hunting accident. Unfortunately, the Iranian Hitler making steady and uninterrupted progress toward the objective of obtaining a nuclear weapon which may long influence world history. However, it is perhaps asking too much of the media to focus on the fact that a terrorist state once again defied civilized nations in its effort to obtain weapons to intimidate the West and perhaps eliminate a nation.The Moose is not a press-basher - they generally do their difficult job well. But lately, they have mostly abdicated their responsibility.

Out of intimidation or political correctness, they have succumbed to the mob and refused to publish the cartoons that are the center of an international controversy. And yesterday, they missed the big story because they were in a narcissistic snit as the result of being stiffed..But, the Iranians hope to stiff the world - and that rogue nation came a step closer to make that a reality but hardly anyone would know.

Whittman is one of a growing number of neocons who have infiltrated the DLC from within. He, like Lieberman, Byah and Clinton (Hillary) believe in spreading democracy first, preparing the homeland against attack second. Iran's president is Hitleresque because he is trying to build nuclear weapons and also we just don't like him that much. Therefore, we must attack, even though our forces are stretched to the limit in another Arab country. Hitler murdered 6 million Jews and sanctioned genocide, let me know if this Iranian nutcase gets to that point.

Tax cuts and you

The Onion gets the word on the street.

Best one: Mary Ann Rose - Line Producer, when asked about Bush's tax cuts:

"This could potentially leave a huge deficit for my children and grandchildren, which is perfect revenge for them not visiting me."

Incredible

Andrew Sullivan illustrates the fine art of hypocrisy.

Consistency

I know this goes against my best judgement, but I'm watching Chris Matthews right now and I see him tear out of the gate with this Cheney story furious at Cheney's decision to not inform the world till 24 hours after the incident, he has monkey brow David Gregory on and shows the press conference today with McClellan, yada yada yada.

Then, he switches to fawning mode with former senator Allan Simpson from the great quail hunting state of Wyoming. Matthews needs to find out just how this hunting business works. Simpson proceeds to blame the person who got shot by not letting the second most powerful person in the world he wasn't a quail.

So, we go from well deserved anger to fawning curiosity. This guy has got to be bipolar or something.

History

Jimmy Carter knows FISA.

Thanks NAFTA

The U.S. trade deficit soared to an all-time high of $725.8 billion in 2005, pushed upward by record imports of oil, food, cars and other consumer goods. The deficit with China hit an all-time high as did America’s deficits with Japan, Europe, OPEC, Canada, Mexico and South and Central America.

The Commerce Department reported Friday that the gap between what America sells abroad and what it imports rose to $725.8 billion last year, up by 17.5 percent from the previous record of $617.6 billion set in 2004.

It marked the fourth consecutive year that America’s trade deficit has set a record and was certain to spark increased debate in Congress over President Bush’s trade policies. Since mid-2000 the country has lost nearly 3 million manufacturing jobs and Democrats blame the administration’s policy of emphasizing free trade agreements.

Any one of these countries can demand payment at any time.

The new Dan Quayle

GOP, please run this guy (tip: brendannyhan)

Cartoon Schmartoon

"The right to offend comes with consequent rights and responsibilities: People must also have the right to be offended, and those bold enough to knowingly cause offense should be bold enough to weather the consequences, so long as the aggrieved act within the law." Robert Young in the Nation, more here.

Clinton denial

Robert Samuelson's piece in the Washington Post about Clinton and the economy is thoroughly eviscerated here.

Can we really say we prefer the taxcut and spend policies of Bush? Do we really enjoy exploding deficits of which payment will be placed squarely on the back of future generations?

I know, I know we shouldn't be worried about our massive trade deficit when we have a WOT to win and an Iraqi infrastructure to ruin but just let me vent. More later.

Couric as receptacle

For proof that there is a God.

King funeral

Already the pile on begins in regards to the King funeral yesterday, i'm sure there is a ton more to wade through on the righty blogs.

Didn't watch the whole event. However, I did see Clinton once again prove he is a master at lifting an event and its meaning. The "Rev" could have thrown out the WMD and still his comments would have been just as effective. Then again, when you are the POTUS taking responsibility for your decisions is part of the job and for actually showing up Bush deserves some credit.

the only one

This man is the only one who can reclaim traditional populist values back from the current gilded, confused Democratic party.

Can you imagine him giving this as an acceptance speech?

A dangerous calm

If you missed the spying hearings, here's a nice summary.

Ok, now i'm going to lose it

Bush's budget also assumes $43 billion in various fee increases over five years, including many that Congress has rejected in the past. Among these are higher charges for soldiers, veterans, air travelers and pensions. Higher aviation security fees would raise $9.7 billion over five years, and veterans would face $6.8 billion in new fees on medical care. (quote taken from DailyKos)

Wonder if this is what the neocons envisioned.

thanks for your service, now go to hell

The Commodity Supplemental Food Program, which provides nutritional food packages for less than $20 a month to more than 400,000 low-income elderly people, one-third of whom are over age 75. (courtesy Mother Jones)

One of the programs gutted in the budget. These people most likely served their country at one point in the war to stop the spread of facism, remember that one? WWII?

We're spending billions of dollars a day in Iraq but we are now going to deny grandparents food supplementals. The cable talking heads should be all over this one, where's Bill "the little guy" O'Reilly?

name that senator

"It is scandalous to provide insufficient funding for our nation’s two greatest capital investments, health and education." (Congressional Quarterly)

Kennedy? Kerry? Clinton? Nope, it's Arlen Spector, chameleon.

The president's budget is a punishing display of disregard for the vulnerable. Medicare, education and programs that regular people use are sacrificed at the altar of Iraq. When are budgets going to reflect the priorities of the american people?

the no harm, no foul defense

Chris Matthews just used a rhetorical defense of the NSA program. His view is since no one has come forward to complain about being spied on, then "no harm, no foul."

Matthews is as elastic as a rubber band.

Feingold destroys National Review spin

Congressional oversight at work.

President Feingold

What do you get when you take the only senator to vote against the excessive Patriot Act, throw in a remarkable performance at both the Roberts and Alito nomination hearings and questions that need to be asked of our pro torture Attorney General?

You get the next President of the United States.

what is the point?

The hearings have begun and already they are useless. Gonzales isn't even under oath, so anything he says will be besides the point. For example:

"Yes Senator, the president feels he has the right to smash childrens eyeballs in a time of war and no one can stop him." This fake quote was based on an actual question posed to John Yoo to which Yoo responded in a similar way.

And guess what? party line vote, all the GOPers voted against having him testify under oath.

settled

Remember the whole spin about Plame not being covert at the time she was outed?

The CIA says otherwise.

Bush as orator

In his latest piece for the Atlantic, Jim Fallows seems to lay out the GOP line of attack come this fall in this analysis of the President's SOTU:

My guess is that George Bush's suddenly-revived Wilsonian tone reflects his Administration's long-standing belief that it does best when playing offense. Apologize for the NSA program, or try to explain it away? Hell no! Make the people who question it apologize for their laxness about American security!

My gut instict tells me this will work for the GOP. The public is unhappy but they will cling to the idea that somehow this president is still up to the job of protecting them and that like in 2004 will be the clincher. Which is why, the Dems need to push way out front the likes of John Murtha, someone who can articulate much like Bush does what we truly need to be doing when it comes to Iraq and terrorism. The Kaine approach is not working.

Murtha sets the stakes

In the end, there‘s only two solutions. One is, you either stick with the president—which is not a policy, it‘s open-ended—or you take my policy which is redeploy and reduce the expenditures there and start spending on that war against terrorism. (Murtha on Hardball)

That about sums it up. This is what will differentiate both parties going into 2006 and beyond.

how to conduct a war - Bush style

Mr Bush told the Mr Blair that the US was so worried about the failure to find hard evidence against Saddam that it thought of "flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft planes with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours". Mr Bush added: "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach [of UN resolutions]". (from the Guardian in UK)

My bolding. Nah, we don't need any investigations into prewar intelligence surrounding the first preemptive war in american history.

the response that wasnt

My kingdom for a president like this man: (tip: Huffpost or Yahoo)

Wednesday February 1, 2006
The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States of America
600 Pennsylvania AvenueWashington DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

This March will mark the beginning of the 4th year of the war in Iraq. In contrast, U.S. involvement in WWI came to an end after 19 months. Victory in Europe was declared in WWII after 3 years 5 months. In the Korean War, a cease-fire was signed after 3 years and 1 month. But after more than three and a half years into the war in Iraq, your administration finally produced what is called a "Plan for Victory" in Iraq.
Iraq is not the center for the global war on terrorism. I believe Iraq has diverted our attention away from the fight against global terrorism and has depleted the required resources needed to wage an effective war. It is estimated that there are only about 750 to 1,000 al-Qaeda in Iraq. I believe the Iraqis will force them out or kill them after U.S. troops are gone. In fact, there is now evidence that Iraqi insurgent groups are increasingly turning against al-Qaeda and other foreign terrorists.
Our country needs a vigorous and comprehensive strategy for victory against global terrorism. The architect of 9/11 is still out there but now has an international microphone. We must get back to the real issue at hand - we have to root out and destroy al-Qaeda's worldwide network.
There are 4 key elements that I recommend to reinvigorate our global anti-terrorism effort: Redeploy, Replace, Reallocate, and Reconstitute.
Redeploy
The war in Iraq is fueling terrorism, not eliminating it. Our continued military presence feeds the strong anti-foreigner fervor that has existed in this part of the world for centuries. A vast majority of the Iraqi people now view American troops as occupiers, not liberators. Over 80% of Iraqis want U.S. forces to leave Iraq and 47% think it is justified to attack Americans. 70% of Iraqis favor a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. forces, with half favoring a withdrawal in the next six months. In fact, 67% of Iraqis expect day-to-day security for Iraqi citizens will improve if U.S. forces withdraw in six months and over 60% believe violent attacks, including those that are ethnically motivated, will decrease. Our military presence is the single most important reason why the Iraqis have tolerated the foreign terrorists, who account for less than 7 percent of the insurgency. 93% of the insurgency is made up of Iraqis. Once our troops are re-deployed, the Iraqis will reject the terrorists and deny them a safe haven in Iraq. The Iraqis are against a foreign presence in Iraq of any kind.
The steadfast and valiant efforts of the United States military and coalition partners have provided the Iraqi people with the framework needed to self govern. The Iraqis held elections that have been touted as highly successful, based primarily on the accounts of Iraqis who went to the polls. But our continued military presence in Iraq, regardless of the motives behind it, is seen by Iraqis as interfering in Iraq's democratic process and undercuts the chances for the newly elected government to be successful. Recently, Iraq's National Security Adviser accused U.S. negotiators of going behind the back of the Iraqi government on talks with insurgents, saying the process could encourage more violence. He said, "Americans are making a huge and fatal mistake in their policy for appeasement and they should not do this. They should leave the Iraqi government to deal with it... The United States should allow the new Iraqi government to decide on how to quell the insurgency."
In December 2005, an ABC News poll in Iraq produced some noteworthy results. 57% of Iraqis identified national security as the country's top priority. When asked to rate the confidence in public institutions, they gave Iraqi police a 68% confidence level, the Iraqi army 67%, religious leaders 67%. But the U.S./U.K. forces scored the lowest, a mere 18%. The longer our military stays in Iraq, the more unwelcome we will be. We will be increasingly entangled in an open-ended nation building mission, one that our military can not accomplish amidst a civil war. Our troops will continue to be the targets of Iraqis who see them as interfering occupiers.
Redeploying our forces from Iraq and stationing a mobile force outside of the country removes a major antagonizing factor. I believe we will see a swift demise of foreign terrorist groups in Iraq if we redeploy outside of the country. Further, our troops will no longer be the targets of bloody attacks.
Replace
The ever-changing justifications of the war in Iraq, combined with tragic missteps, have resulted in a worldwide collapse of support for U.S. policies in Iraq.
The credibility of the United States of America will not be restored if we continue down the path of saying one thing and doing another. We must not lower our standards and tactics to those of the terrorists. In order to keep our homeland secure, we must hold true to the values that molded our American democracy, even in the face of adversity. Former Secretary of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge, said it best during a speech in March 2004 to the Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies: "America knows we cannot seek a double standard. And, America knows we get what we give. And so we must and will always be careful to respect people's privacy, civil liberties and reputations. To suggest that there is a tradeoff between security and individual freedoms -- that we must discard one protection for the other -- is a false choice. You do not defend liberty to forsake it."
Restoring the world's confidence in America as a competent and morally superior world leader is essential to winning the war on global terrorism.
A recent pubic opinion poll, conducted jointly with Zogby International and taken in Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, found that 81% said the war in Iraq had brought less peace to the Middle East. A majority of the respondents said they view the United States as the biggest threat to their nations.
Mr. President, I believe in order to restore our credibility, you must hold accountable those responsible for so many missteps and install a fresh team that demonstrates true diplomatic skill, knowledge of cultural differences and a willingness to earnestly engage other leaders in a respectful and constructive way. This would do much to reinvigorate international participation in a truly effective war on global terrorism.
Reallocate
The Department of Defense has been allocated $238 billion for the war in Iraq, with average monthly costs growing significantly since the beginning of the war. In 2003 the average monthly war cost was $4.4 billion; by 2005 the average monthly cost had reached $6.1 billion.
Despite the urgent homeland security needs of our country, the bipartisan 9/11 Commission issued a dismal report card on the efforts to improve our counter-terrorist defenses. Even the most basic of recommendations, such as the coordination of fire and police communication lines, still have not been accomplished.
In the face of threats from international terrorists, we need to reallocate funds from the war in Iraq to protecting the United States against attack. A safe and swift redeployment from Iraq will allow us to do just that.
Reconstitute
The U.S. army is the smallest it's been since 1941. It is highly capable. But this drawn out conflict has put tremendous stress on our military, particularly on our Army and Marine Corps, whose operations tempo has increased substantially since 9/11.
The Government Accountability Office issued a report in November 2005 addressing the challenges of military personnel recruitment and retention and noted that the Department of Defense had been unable to fill over 112,000 positions in critical occupational specialties. This shortfall includes intelligence analysts, special forces, interpreters, and demolition experts-- those on whom we rely so heavily in today's asymmetric battlefield.
Some of our troops have been deployed four times over the last three years. Enlistment for the regular forces as well as the guard and reserves are well below recruitment goals. In 2005, the Army missed its recruitment goal for the first time since 1999, even after offering enlistment bonuses and incentives, lowering its monthly goals, and lowering its recruitment standards. As Retired Army officer Andrew Krepinevich recently warned in a report to the Pentagon, the Army is "in a race against time" to adjust to the demands of war "or risk 'breaking' the force in the form of a catastrophic decline" in recruitment and re-enlistment.
The harsh environment in which we are operating our equipment in Iraq, combined with the equipment usage rate (ten times greater than peacetime levels) is taking a heavy toll on our ground equipment. It is currently estimated that $50 billion will be required to refurbish this equipment.
Further, in its response to Hurricane Katrina, the National Guard realized that it had over $1.3 billion in equipment shortfalls. This has created a tremendous burden on non-deployed guard units, on whom this country depends so heavily to respond to domestic disasters and possible terrorist attacks. Without relief, Army Guard units will face growing equipment shortages and challenges in regaining operational readiness for future missions at home and overseas.
Since 9/11, Congress has appropriated about $334 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, while the insurgents have spent hundreds of thousands. We have seen reports estimating that the total cost of the wars may reach as high as $1 trillion. These estimates are said to include such costs as providing long-term disability benefits and care for injured service members. It is estimated today that over 16,000 U.S. troops have been wounded in Iraq, 10,481 of whom have been wounded by "weaponry explosive devices."
But while war costs continue to climb, cuts are being made to the defense budget. As soon as the war is over there will be pressure to cut even more. This year, even while we are at war, 8 billion dollars was cut from the base defense spending bill. You ordered another $32 billion in cuts to the defense budget over the next five years, with $11.6 billion coming from the Army. The Pentagon told Congress only last year that it needed 77 combat brigades to fulfill its missions, but now insists it only needs 70. In fact, 6 of the 7 combat brigades will be cut from the National Guard, reducing its combat units from 34 to 28. Even though all of the National Guard combat brigades have been deployed overseas since 9/11, your Administration has determined that, because of funding shortfalls, our combat ground forces can be reduced. Not only will these cuts diminish our combat power, but our ability to respond to natural disasters and terrorist threats to our homeland will be adversely affected. It is obvious that the cost of the war, in conjunction with the Army's inability to meet recruitment goals, has impacted this estimate. My concern is that instead of our force structure being based on the future threat, it is now being based on the number of troops and level of funding available.
I am concerned that costly program cuts will lead to costly mistakes and we will be unable to sustain another deployment even if there is a real threat. The future of our military and the future of our country could very well be at stake. The high dollar forecasts of our future military weapons systems and military health care add pressure to cut costs on the backs of these programs. As our weapons systems age, the concern becomes even greater.
During a time of war, we are cutting our combat force, we have not mobilized industry, and have never fully mobilized our military. On our current path, I believe that we are not only in danger of breaking our military, but that we are increasing the chances of a major miscalculation by our future enemies, who may perceive us as vulnerable.

Sincerely,
JOHN P. MURTHAMember of Congress

shocker

"One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America's dependence on Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, his energy secretary and national economic adviser said Wednesday that the president didn't mean it literally." (tip: Washington Monthly)

Didn't see that one coming did you?

end neoconservatism

"Neoconservatives see the world as they wish it to be, not as it is. Like teenagers, they act on impulse and rail against the counsel of experience. "Often clever, never wise," Russell Kirk said of the breed."

from Buchanan's site americancause.

On a related note, Americanlogic has discovered a lonely neocon clinging to memories of 9/11.

All talk

Think Progress reminds us Bush is full of shit when it comes to the oil addiction talk.

addicted to black gold

Apparently, Sullivan is buying it.

Pre - preview

A peek into Tim Kaine's response tonight after the president.

Per CNN, Bush is actually going to say "America is addicted to oil." Well, no shit and who might have a hand in furthering the addiction? Also, this gem:

"In a complex and challenging time, the road of isolationism and protectionism may seem broad and inviting - yet it ends in danger and decline. " "The only way to protect our people - the only way to secure the peace - the only way to control our destiny is by our leadership. So, the United States of America will continue to lead."

Translation: I haven't learned a goddamn thing.

A disaster

This is the adjective used by righty Tucker Carlson to describe a possible Democratic takeover of the House this year. Apparently the country wouldn't be able to stand the numerous investigations that would ensue.

Unfortunately, I will miss the SOTU. Evident by the existence of this blog, I am a political crackhead as well as a deep admirer of the presidency itself. Oh well.

AN HOUR AND FIFTEEN MINUTES!

This might as well be the screaming headline on all the cable talking head shows this evening. Let me put it out there for anyone reading:

Expect the same, lofty, tired rheotoric from this president on everything from healthcare to energy dependence. Expect every Repub to stand after every presidential pause and clap until their hands bleed. Expect shots of angry Dems, especially Kennedy, sitting on their hands.

And just to rub some salt in the fresh wound, expect new justice Sam Alito right in the front.

Ramsey Clark

Just saw the former attorney general on a panel discussing the impeachment of the president, I can't get my head around someone who is supposedly for human rights defending someone who gouged children's eyeballs out. Attaching Clark's name instantly deflates any impeachment talk, even when its warranted.

Is it just me?

War?

At least someone is asking this question: (tip, Washington Monthly)

"Iraq is not a war, because, though we have savage assault, we have no enemy. The war on terrorism is not a war because, though we have an enemy, the muscle-bound Pentagon offers no authentic means of assault."

Jim Carroll of the Boston Globe beat me to it. If only I was a well connected, well paid journalist who is stating the obvious.

A master

"Tonight, on the 1,050th day of the Iraq War (the 912th day of the Second World War was D-Day), the nation needs an adult hour, including a measured meditation on overreaching, from the Middle East to Medicare's new prescription drug entitlement. But in State of the Union addresses, rarely is heard a discouraging word."

"The Democrats have already been heard from. In their ``pre-buttal'' to the State of the Union, they promised, among much else, that, according to House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, if they come to power, ``every American will have affordable access to broadband within five years.'' Which tells you something about the state of the union."

-George Will today.