Despite what you will read on other blogs, this coming year will not provide any comfort to Repubs or Dems. There will not be massive gains by the Dems and the GOP will not continue to flounder. Yes, Americanlogic readers (hello?) 2006 will resemble its previous year.
We will see the final nail in Rove's coffin as Chief of Staff as he will be indicted early in the year of being the nastiest and repulsive political operative in recent memory, however not for outing a CIA agent. Bush as usual, will not fire him, but wish him luck as a member of the DHS.
Baghdad Scott McClellan will remain as press sec. He will continue to sweat profusely and become red when asked a handful of probing questions about Iraq, spying and the overal state of the kingdom.
And the president, well Bush will continue to coast towards the end of his term. His numbers barely cracking 45% (his base), his "opposition" party will continue to chase their tails unable to get behind principled men like Murtha and Feingold, you know those "radicals."
Iraq? What about it.
Friday, December 30, 2005
What's the problem?
"There is much to be said and done about the man-made annihilation of New Orleans, caused NOT by a hurricane but by the very specific decisions made by the Bush administration in the past four and a half years." - Michael Moore.
The above quote was the winner of the "Moore award," on Andrew Sullivan's site (you know, the Buddha of bloggers). Sullivan thinks Moore hates America for pointing out it is run by incompetent plutocrats.
I have no problem with Moore's statement. Moore is slightly out there on occasion, but the above statement is techinically true in that the priorities of the administration contributed to the disaster of Katrina. No, Bush and Co did not personally inundate New Orleans with sewer water.
How about this Sullivan? Quote of the decade: "You're doing a heckuva job Brownie."
The above quote was the winner of the "Moore award," on Andrew Sullivan's site (you know, the Buddha of bloggers). Sullivan thinks Moore hates America for pointing out it is run by incompetent plutocrats.
I have no problem with Moore's statement. Moore is slightly out there on occasion, but the above statement is techinically true in that the priorities of the administration contributed to the disaster of Katrina. No, Bush and Co did not personally inundate New Orleans with sewer water.
How about this Sullivan? Quote of the decade: "You're doing a heckuva job Brownie."
Wish I could do that
The last time Congress agreed to boost the debt limit was in November 2004 — from $7.38 trillion to the current $8.18 trillion. The government's statutory borrowing authority also was pushed up in 2002 and in 2003. (courtesy foxnews.com, yes you read that right)
Couldn't agree more
http://crookedtimber.org/2005/12/29/ten-worst-britons-and-americans/
Excellent, needed post by one of the blogosphere's finest.
Excellent, needed post by one of the blogosphere's finest.
Thursday, December 29, 2005
The new robber barons
Sometime early next year, the House of Representatives is expected to vote on the budget reconciliation legislation that the Senate passed on December 21 and the House passed in a slightly different version on December 19. That legislation would make significant cuts in a number of programs serving low- and moderate-income families and individuals, including Medicaid, child support enforcement, and student loans.
Supporters of the legislation defend the cuts as “tough choices” that need to be made because of large and growing budget deficits. These claims are undercut by the fact that, in the last six weeks, the House has passed four tax-cut bills that together cost more than twice what the budget reconciliation bill saves. The claims are further undermined by Congress’s unwillingness to rethink any previously enacted tax cuts as part of its supposed reevaluation of priorities in light of deficits.In particular, Congress has chosen to allow two tax cuts that exclusively benefit high-income households - primarily millionaires - to begin taking effect on January 1, 2006. By 2010, these tax cuts will eliminate two current provisions of the tax code that limit the value of the personal exemptions and itemized deductions that people at high income levels can take. (courtesy cbpp.org)
This has been going on for five years. Tax cutting during "war" and putting the comfort of those at the top before regular 8-5 working people. I am not an economist but even someone who has never studied tax policy can see this for what is truly is: the attempt to created a new gilded age for those at the very top. This is not about class warfare, it's about combining common sense with fairness. The choice to gut Medicare over repealing tax cut after tax cut is not a "tough" one.
Americanlogic is searching for anyone who will represent the beleaguered afflicted american people who have seen billions of dollars of their tax money go to a cause to promote democracy in an Arab country. Please show yourself soon.
Supporters of the legislation defend the cuts as “tough choices” that need to be made because of large and growing budget deficits. These claims are undercut by the fact that, in the last six weeks, the House has passed four tax-cut bills that together cost more than twice what the budget reconciliation bill saves. The claims are further undermined by Congress’s unwillingness to rethink any previously enacted tax cuts as part of its supposed reevaluation of priorities in light of deficits.In particular, Congress has chosen to allow two tax cuts that exclusively benefit high-income households - primarily millionaires - to begin taking effect on January 1, 2006. By 2010, these tax cuts will eliminate two current provisions of the tax code that limit the value of the personal exemptions and itemized deductions that people at high income levels can take. (courtesy cbpp.org)
This has been going on for five years. Tax cutting during "war" and putting the comfort of those at the top before regular 8-5 working people. I am not an economist but even someone who has never studied tax policy can see this for what is truly is: the attempt to created a new gilded age for those at the very top. This is not about class warfare, it's about combining common sense with fairness. The choice to gut Medicare over repealing tax cut after tax cut is not a "tough" one.
Americanlogic is searching for anyone who will represent the beleaguered afflicted american people who have seen billions of dollars of their tax money go to a cause to promote democracy in an Arab country. Please show yourself soon.
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
The next big thing?
For a point by point summary of the DLC's best hope go here:
http://www.draftmarkwarner.com/
Notice the similarities to the Dean record in Vermont.
http://www.draftmarkwarner.com/
Notice the similarities to the Dean record in Vermont.
the future of the other side
There is currently a lively, interesting debate on the future of the GOP and its conservative foundation.
Kickstarted by an op-ed in the WSJ, the debate rages between Andrew Sullivan, Julian Sanchez of Reason magazine, the Weekly Standard and Matt Yglesias.
Go here for more: www.andrewsullivan.com
Why the progressive side isn't having this kind of robust debate is beyond me.
Kickstarted by an op-ed in the WSJ, the debate rages between Andrew Sullivan, Julian Sanchez of Reason magazine, the Weekly Standard and Matt Yglesias.
Go here for more: www.andrewsullivan.com
Why the progressive side isn't having this kind of robust debate is beyond me.
Could you do this for a living?
"Well, it might not shock you to hear we might have a different view. The year ended on a pretty strong note, with 10 million Iraqis going to the polls and electing a permanent government. We've got some extremely strong economic data and tremendous job creation for the American people. And as the President said, as far as the economy goes, the outlook for the economy is very strong and the horizon is very bright."
- Trent Duffy, White House spokesperson today in Crawford addressing reporters.
Look, even if the public were paying attention to the slightly above average economic news (which it's not) Iraq would once again become center stage because we are still losing men and woman for reasons still unknown.
- Trent Duffy, White House spokesperson today in Crawford addressing reporters.
Look, even if the public were paying attention to the slightly above average economic news (which it's not) Iraq would once again become center stage because we are still losing men and woman for reasons still unknown.
The buck stops where?
When one thinks of abuse of presidential power, the mind automatically shifts to Richard Nixon and his enemies list.
Nixon was the most obsessed of the modern presidents regarding secrecy and an empirical sense of entitlement. Bush is closing in on the crown as the king of the power obsessed. However, Harry Truman as I understand it felt it was within his role as commander in chief to force the steel mills to remain productive during the Korean War. He was then repudiated by the Supreme Court by a 6-3 vote. The country was also not in a state of war at that time. Truman, despite his strengths left office with the lowest approval rating in presidential history at 28% Moral of the story: don't overreach.
Although Al-Qaeda represents a threat to this country, we are currently not in a state of war. The right however, is operating under that premise. Their War on Terror is infinite, hence the president should have infinite powers to deal in this war. What will their feeling be if the president elect in 2008 is not one who bends along their ideological lines? Will they still want a President Feingold or Hillary Clinton to wield these powers to detain, torture and spy? Is this only Bush's war?
- Just a few observations.
Nixon was the most obsessed of the modern presidents regarding secrecy and an empirical sense of entitlement. Bush is closing in on the crown as the king of the power obsessed. However, Harry Truman as I understand it felt it was within his role as commander in chief to force the steel mills to remain productive during the Korean War. He was then repudiated by the Supreme Court by a 6-3 vote. The country was also not in a state of war at that time. Truman, despite his strengths left office with the lowest approval rating in presidential history at 28% Moral of the story: don't overreach.
Although Al-Qaeda represents a threat to this country, we are currently not in a state of war. The right however, is operating under that premise. Their War on Terror is infinite, hence the president should have infinite powers to deal in this war. What will their feeling be if the president elect in 2008 is not one who bends along their ideological lines? Will they still want a President Feingold or Hillary Clinton to wield these powers to detain, torture and spy? Is this only Bush's war?
- Just a few observations.
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
Some things are simple
Once again, the elite punditry has taken what seems like a simple issue and turned it on its head. The latest is wiretapping. As we all know by now, the president after 9/11 and ever since has spied on american citizens as a matter of presidential authority.
Someone who is not immersed in the culture of DC would probably say: "Well, is that legal?" Depends on your definition of legal so they say. The president and the NSA can spy on anyone they want as long as they obtain a warrant to do so, especially in instances of national security.
Problem is, Bush hasn't obtained warrants. He's doing it under the general shroud of "war." Since the war on terror is endless, we expect more spying and trampling of the constitution. We've already "debated" waterboarding, on to reading the nation's diary.
Can someone stand up and demand accountability on a national level? Anyone. The president swore an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution, terrorism or no terrorism. What we really have here is a debate about the powers of the president and congressional oversight. Do we want an unchecked presidency. Our humble VP seems to desire this. Bush seems to assume it.
Some things are not up for "debate." Torture and warrantless spying included.
Someone who is not immersed in the culture of DC would probably say: "Well, is that legal?" Depends on your definition of legal so they say. The president and the NSA can spy on anyone they want as long as they obtain a warrant to do so, especially in instances of national security.
Problem is, Bush hasn't obtained warrants. He's doing it under the general shroud of "war." Since the war on terror is endless, we expect more spying and trampling of the constitution. We've already "debated" waterboarding, on to reading the nation's diary.
Can someone stand up and demand accountability on a national level? Anyone. The president swore an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution, terrorism or no terrorism. What we really have here is a debate about the powers of the president and congressional oversight. Do we want an unchecked presidency. Our humble VP seems to desire this. Bush seems to assume it.
Some things are not up for "debate." Torture and warrantless spying included.
whatever you want to call it
"The Iraq War of 2003 didn't come out of nowhere; it represents the culmination of misguided policies, virtually all of them-including the 1980s ''tilt'' toward Saddam Hussein-carried out in plain sight of the American public. Blaming everything on Bush won't prevent a recurrence of Bush's mistakes. A realist might suggest that Americans looking for someone to hold accountable begin by looking in the mirror." (Andrew J. Bacevich in the Boston Globe last month)
Realism, isolationism, neoliberalism, conservatism, all mean for us to stop meddling with the world. Tend to our own needs. Maybe call it newamericanism.
Realism, isolationism, neoliberalism, conservatism, all mean for us to stop meddling with the world. Tend to our own needs. Maybe call it newamericanism.
Let it snow?
An interesting look at how other parts of this globe other than Buffalo handle snow:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/weather/Story/0,2763,1674128,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/weather/Story/0,2763,1674128,00.html
Looking back
If you really want to get technical, it's all Al Gore's fault....
That was my first attempt at blogging. It was the launching pad of americanlogic. Looking back at the statement itself, politically speaking, it's true. Five years ago despite the contested results, america decided to take a chance on a seemingly humble Texan. He was a Bush, we were familiar with the Bushes and their dynasty. We heard "compassionate conservative" uttered over and over again.
Al Gore, as he proved as Vice President, was an able, intelligent man who would continue the policies of Clinton centrism, a ideal while flawed, had the countries best interest at heart. The media saw Gore as an elitist, by which they meant "smarter than them." Bush was affable, funny at times and seemed uninterested in anything. Why not?
I voted for the Gore/Lieberman ticket and still would. Most people would do the same. Would we be in Iraq? maybe (regime change was the policy of the Clinton administration). Would those at the bottom or near the bottom be less comfortable? probably not.
Despite all their problems, their inability to get it together, the Democratic party still is the party of the afflicted. The GOP is the party of the established, no more is that apparent in the spending package squeaked through this month. Make the wealthy share the burden of war and stuggle? Nope. Cut the only thing that keeps families from completely falling apart? You bet. The party of endless war abroad and at home.
It all started in 2000.
That was my first attempt at blogging. It was the launching pad of americanlogic. Looking back at the statement itself, politically speaking, it's true. Five years ago despite the contested results, america decided to take a chance on a seemingly humble Texan. He was a Bush, we were familiar with the Bushes and their dynasty. We heard "compassionate conservative" uttered over and over again.
Al Gore, as he proved as Vice President, was an able, intelligent man who would continue the policies of Clinton centrism, a ideal while flawed, had the countries best interest at heart. The media saw Gore as an elitist, by which they meant "smarter than them." Bush was affable, funny at times and seemed uninterested in anything. Why not?
I voted for the Gore/Lieberman ticket and still would. Most people would do the same. Would we be in Iraq? maybe (regime change was the policy of the Clinton administration). Would those at the bottom or near the bottom be less comfortable? probably not.
Despite all their problems, their inability to get it together, the Democratic party still is the party of the afflicted. The GOP is the party of the established, no more is that apparent in the spending package squeaked through this month. Make the wealthy share the burden of war and stuggle? Nope. Cut the only thing that keeps families from completely falling apart? You bet. The party of endless war abroad and at home.
It all started in 2000.
Fitzmas?
Under the radar is the CIA leak scandal. Something is about to give. Americanlogic predicts Patrick Fitzgerald will make a New Years appearance soon. Keep your eyes and ears open.
Just for the record, the creation of "Fitzmas" was not one of the highlights of 2005.
Just for the record, the creation of "Fitzmas" was not one of the highlights of 2005.
going forward
Americanlogic is back from his holiday hiatus. If anyone missed me, thanks.
Pat Buchanan, one of the solidly old Right voices, hits the right mark in a piece on his site american cause (www.americacause.com) Basically, it details the folly of American enterprise in promoting "freedom and democracy" and doing so in countries that despise us. Quite a frightening summary of the hostility and distrust that has built up in places like Canada and Europe when it comes to this president and his vision of the world.
Pat Buchanan, one of the solidly old Right voices, hits the right mark in a piece on his site american cause (www.americacause.com) Basically, it details the folly of American enterprise in promoting "freedom and democracy" and doing so in countries that despise us. Quite a frightening summary of the hostility and distrust that has built up in places like Canada and Europe when it comes to this president and his vision of the world.
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Where do you stand
Americanlogic believes in liberty and justice for all. Where do you stand? We know where the president and vice president stand. They believe in secrecy at all costs, shadow government and political punishment for any who disagree. This is not America.
We should get on our knees and thank God for people like Russ Feingold and those principled conservatives who truly believe that the president should not have unchecked power even in the face of jihadists.
We should get on our knees and thank God for people like Russ Feingold and those principled conservatives who truly believe that the president should not have unchecked power even in the face of jihadists.
Name that president
This is all over the blogosphere:
"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution." (President Bush)
That folks is called a lie. Not a misleading statement, a lie. And he told it right here in Buffalo.
"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution." (President Bush)
That folks is called a lie. Not a misleading statement, a lie. And he told it right here in Buffalo.
Local watch
"You may not like it but in this county we have rules. well if you don't like it keep quiet. we have rules in this country."
This gem was directed at councilman-elect Satish Mohan at the Amherst board meeting. Once again, thanks Mr. President for fostering this kind of environment in this country.
This gem was directed at councilman-elect Satish Mohan at the Amherst board meeting. Once again, thanks Mr. President for fostering this kind of environment in this country.
Hang your head in shame
"We are at war with a Jihadist enemy who wants us and our families dead. It is not clear that some of our elites recognize that fact or care any more. And some on the left fear that President Bush is a greater threat to our nation's security and liberties than the Jihadists."
Believe me, the man you've described as a "man-child" has told us many times to be afraid.
Mr Whittman, or Moose, hang your head in shame.
Believe me, the man you've described as a "man-child" has told us many times to be afraid.
Mr Whittman, or Moose, hang your head in shame.
King George
Take a step back for a moment. Witness the press conference given by our president yesterday. If anyone thought for a moment he would continue the olive branching they would be fooling themselves. Yesterday, you saw a president so obsessed with his own power, the press conference became an excercise in caution as to not upset the master. Bush was loud, angry and totally unreasonable. Throughout his presidency, he has made it perfectly clear to the casual observer that he hates these kind of things, namely open and honest government.
Wiretaps will continue as long as he deems them neccessary (Vegans beware!). Oh, and in case we forgot "there is an enemy that lurks and wants to kill Americans." Sprinkle with a little 9/11 and you have a recipie for autocratic rule. Can you imagine how the families of the victims of 9/11 react everytime they hear this president invoke 9/11 as if its a protective vest? Bush should be charged a seat in Congress every time he utters it.
Listen, I remember 9/11. I cried at my desk the morning of 9/11. The day after 9/11 I didn't know if we would experience a 9/12. Bush continues to exploit this day for his political benefit. Why doesn't a reporter stand up and say: "Mr President, stop using this tragedy for your presonal and political gain and realize today is what matters." I truly believe that a good amount of americans operate as if terrorist attacks are imminent. Bush can count on this group all the time for support. Terrorists don't lurk, they plan in hotels or houses or gathering points. They are not the Muslim man next to you in line at the grocery store in smalltown USA.
For the rest of his presidency, George Bush will use 9/11 as an excuse for everything he has done or will do. From torture to spying, he will ask that we swallow this bile to prevent another attack. I for one, refuse to do so.
Wiretaps will continue as long as he deems them neccessary (Vegans beware!). Oh, and in case we forgot "there is an enemy that lurks and wants to kill Americans." Sprinkle with a little 9/11 and you have a recipie for autocratic rule. Can you imagine how the families of the victims of 9/11 react everytime they hear this president invoke 9/11 as if its a protective vest? Bush should be charged a seat in Congress every time he utters it.
Listen, I remember 9/11. I cried at my desk the morning of 9/11. The day after 9/11 I didn't know if we would experience a 9/12. Bush continues to exploit this day for his political benefit. Why doesn't a reporter stand up and say: "Mr President, stop using this tragedy for your presonal and political gain and realize today is what matters." I truly believe that a good amount of americans operate as if terrorist attacks are imminent. Bush can count on this group all the time for support. Terrorists don't lurk, they plan in hotels or houses or gathering points. They are not the Muslim man next to you in line at the grocery store in smalltown USA.
For the rest of his presidency, George Bush will use 9/11 as an excuse for everything he has done or will do. From torture to spying, he will ask that we swallow this bile to prevent another attack. I for one, refuse to do so.