Archive for April 30th, 2007

Midnight Monday Media Blogging

Compare and contrast. Real:
Not only is the porn perfidious and evil, but the wrong porn can TURN YOU GAY OMG!!!!1!1!!
(h/t belledame222)

Parody (and hilarious, at that):
“Kissing wouldn’t mean much… now.”

And into the modern era:

I promise not to post any more pictures of myself in my underwear, flaunting my tattoos…

3 comments April 30th, 2007 at 11:59pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Monday Media Blogging

The Amazing Broderella

He really is quite extraordinary:

On the April 30 edition of XM Radio’s The Bob Edwards Show, Washington Post columnist David Broder asserted that it was “really doubtful” President Bush would be able “to salvage something that would look like a victory in Iraq.” Broder made this statement four days after he attacked Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) for what he called Reid’s “ineptitude,” because of, as he wrote in his April 26 Post column, Reid’s assertion that the Iraq war “is lost.” As Media Matters for America noted, in that column, Broder pointed to Reid’s “war is lost” remark to compare him to embattled Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and accuse him of engaging in “inept discussion[s] of the alternatives in Iraq” and of not being “a man who misses many opportunities to put his foot in his mouth.”

Yes, that’s right – Broder thinks Harry Reid is a bumbling buffoon for saying something that Broder agrees with. I guess he didn’t say it civilly or deferentially enough or something.

I know I should be amazed that people as bad at their jobs as Broder, the punditocracy, and the Republicans manage to stay employed, but I’m not. After too many years of watching the Republican party trash our country and the world, and the media make excuses for them, I have come around to the conclusion that the media and the Republicans’ true job is not to inform or serve the public interest, but rather to perpetuate and consolidate Republican power, and to facilitate the ongoing looting of the treasury by cronies and corporate interests.

Although, come to think of it, they haven’t been performing all that well on the whole perpetuate-and-consolidate front lately, and it’s only going to get worse. Maybe they’ll finally get fired after all.

April 30th, 2007 at 06:19pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Democrats,Iraq,Media,Politics,Wankers,War

I Hope Brooks And Buckley Are Right About The Right

Few things are as musical to my ears (okay, eyes) as when the conservatives’ own pundits turn against them.

My dad’s old school chum, William F. Buckley Jr:

The political problem of the Bush administration is grave, possibly beyond the point of rescue. The opinion polls are savagely decisive on the Iraq question. About 60 percent of Americans wish the war ended – wish at least a timetable for orderly withdrawal. What is going on in Congress is in the nature of accompaniment. The vote in Congress is simply another salient in the war against war in Iraq. Republican forces, with a couple of exceptions, held fast against the Democrats’ attempt to force Bush out of Iraq even if it required fiddling with the Constitution. President Bush will of course veto the bill, but its impact is critically important in the consolidation of public opinion. It can now accurately be said that the legislature, which writes the people’s laws, opposes the war.

Meanwhile, George Tenet, former head of the CIA, has just published a book which seems to demonstrate that there was one part ignorance, one part bullheadedness, in the high-level discussions before war became policy. Mr. Tenet at least appears to demonstrate that there was nothing in the nature of a genuine debate on the question….


But beyond affirming executive supremacy in matters of war, what is George Bush going to do? It is simply untrue that we are making decisive progress in Iraq. The indicators rise and fall from day to day, week to week, month to month. In South Vietnam there was an organized enemy. There is clearly organization in the strikes by the terrorists against our forces and against the civil government in Iraq, but whereas in Vietnam we had Hanoi as the operative headquarters of the enemy, we have no equivalent of that in Iraq, and that is a matter of paralyzing importance. All those bombings, explosions, assassinations: we are driven to believe that they are, so to speak, spontaneous.

General Petraeus is a wonderfully commanding figure. But if the enemy is in the nature of a disease, he cannot win against it. Students of politics ask then the derivative question: How can the Republican party, headed by a president determined on a war he can’t see an end to, attract the support of a majority of the voters?….

The general makes it a point to steer away from the political implications of the struggle, but this cannot be done in the wider arena. There are grounds for wondering whether the Republican party will survive this dilemma.

And our old friend Bobo weighs in on the bold and resolute Republican response to this crisis from the NYT Green Zone:

The Democrats have opened up a wide advantage in party identification and are crushing the G.O.P. among voters under 30.

Moreover, there has been a clear shift, in poll after poll, away from Republican positions on social issues and on attitudes toward government. Democratic approaches are favored on almost all domestic, tax and fiscal issues, and even on foreign affairs.

The public, in short, wants change.

And yet the Republicans refuse to offer that. On Capitol Hill, there is a strange passivity in Republican ranks. Republicans are privately disgusted with how President Bush has led their party and the nation, but they don’t publicly offer any alternatives. They just follow sullenly along. They privately believe the country needs new approaches to the war against Islamic extremism, but they don’t offer them. They try to block Democratic initiatives, but they don’t offer the country any new ways to think about the G.O.P.

They are like people quietly marching to their doom.

Bobo then laments that all of the Republican presidential candidates are hiding their lights under bushels, trying to be like George Allen, only without all that racism stuff (I think).

The big question is, Why are the Republicans so immobile?

There are several reasons. First, there are structural barriers to change. As it has aged, the conservative movement has grown a collection of special interest groups that restrict its mobility. Anybody who offers unorthodox tax policies gets whacked by the Club for Growth and Americans for Tax Reform. Anybody who offers unorthodox social policies gets whacked by James Dobson.

Second, there is the corrupting influence of teamism. Being a good conservative now means sticking together with other conservatives, not thinking new and adventurous thoughts. [snort!] Those who stray from the reservation are accused of selling out to the mainstream media by the guardians of conservative correctness.

Third, there is the oppressive power of the past. Conservatives have allowed a simplistic view of Ronald Reagan to define the sacred parameters of thought. Reagan himself was flexible, unorthodox and creative. But conservatives have created a mythical, rigid Reagan, and any deviation from that is considered unholy.

Fourth, there is the bunker mentality. Republican morale has been brutalized by the Iraq war and the party’s decline. This state of emotional pain is not conducive to risk-taking and free and open debate.

In sum, Republicans know they need to change, but they have closed off all the avenues for change.


Change could, miraculously, come soon. But the odds are it will take a few more crushing defeats before Republicans tear down the self-imposed walls that confine them.

Let’s hope those crushing defeats give the Democrats enough time to start fixing everything the Republicans broke. And that they’ve learned a lesson other than “We need to be more ruthless and sneaky.”

2 comments April 30th, 2007 at 04:52pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Bush,Iraq,Media,Politics,Republicans,War

Gary Hart Asks…

The question we’d all like to:

Dear Mayor Giuliani:

Since you have based your presidential campaign almost exclusively on your reaction to terrorist attacks on New York City, and since you have recently accused Democrats of being on the defense against terrorism and therefore guilty of inviting more casualties, I have one question for you: Where were you on terrorism between January 31, 2001, and September 11th?

The first date was when the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century issued its final report warning, as did its previous reports, of the danger of terrorist attacks on America. The George W. Bush administration did nothing about these warnings and we lost 3,000 American lives. What did you do during those critical eight months? Where were you? Were you on the defensive, or were you even paying attention?

Before you qualify to criticize Democrats, Mr. Giuliani, you must account for your preparation of your city for these clearly predicted attacks. Tell us, please, what steps you took to make your city safer.

Until you do, then I strongly suggest you should keep your mouth shut about Democrats and terrorism.

You have not qualified to criticize others, let alone be president of the United States.

Gary Hart
(co-chair, U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century)

P.S. You might ask these same questions of George W. Bush while you are trying to find a better reason to run for president.

It’s an interesting pattern, isn’t it? Democrats warn Republicans about threat of terrorism. Republicans ignore warning. America gets hit by terrorists. Republicans continuously accuse Democrats of being soft on terrorism while actively facilitating it.

April 30th, 2007 at 04:14pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Bush,Rudy,Terrorism


Yeah, right:

9 a.m. — (POLITICS/CIVILITY/BOEHNER/LIEBERMAN) CONFERENCE — The American Enterprise Institute, the University of Pennsylvania and the Brookings Institution sponsors a conference titled “Civility and American Politics,” to discuss “how incivility affects our political system and our ability to tackle the problems of twenty-first-century life.” Location: 902 Hart Senate Office Building

Maybe if they talk about right-wing hate radio and the genocidethirsty conservative blogosphere or, really, anything other than Those Terrible Uncouth Liberal Bloggers Who Swear ALL THE TIME, maybe then I’ll take them seriously.

Don’t hold your breath.

April 30th, 2007 at 02:35pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Blogosphere,Media,Republicans,Wankers

My Bush Vs. NOLA Theory

I think I have finally figured out why Bush hates NOLA so much. It’s not because it has so many poor black people, or because it’s mostly Democratic – those only explain his callous indifference.

New Orleans destroyed his presidency. That was the turning point where everyone who was not hopelessly hooked on the Republican Kool-Aid realized that Dubya’s strong-leader-who-will-protect-us-all pose was a total sham. And everything went downhill from there.

He can’t salvage his presidency, but by God, he can make New Orleans pay for not getting out of the way of that damn hurricane, and for not sitting down and shutting up and pretending to be grateful for whatever superficial days-late photo-op charity he saw fit to bestow upon them.

The history books will unanimously wonder what we ever saw in this cretinous lizard.

2 comments April 30th, 2007 at 01:04pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Bush,Katrina

Monday Media Blogging
It’s… The Droids! With… “The Force”! Whee!!!

Seriously, what is it with Europe and the cheesy sci-fi disco?

April 30th, 2007 at 11:59am Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Monday Media Blogging

Contact Eli



Most Recent Posts




April 2007
« Mar   May »

Thinking Blogger

Pittsburgh Webloggers

Site Meter

View My Stats *