Multi Medium

The Bavarian Candidate

Oh noes!

This is pretty extraordinary. A candidate for the American Presidency is using flyers printed in German to turn people out for his campaign rally in Berlin on Thursday.

That sounds like sarcasm, but it’s not.  Ruffini is genuinely perturbed by this - or at least believes that it’s somehow an effective talking point against Obama:

I’m surprised at this lapse in judgment in an otherwise well-oiled and professional Obama campaign. The last time they printed up campaign paraphenalia in a foreign language, it didn’t work out so hot for them.

So, this isn’t just some sober, high-minded foreign policy speech, part of a foreign trip occurring under the auspices of his official Senate office. It is a campaign rally occuring on foreign soil. They are using the same tactics to turn out Germans to an event as they would to any rally right here in America.

Hey, did you know that German was the official language of THE NAZIS???  This is conclusive proof that Obama is just like Hitler.

(h/t Thers & Blue Texan)

Add comment July 23rd, 2008 at 05:58pm Posted by Eli

Wanker Of The Day

John McCain, with honorable mention for CBS:

Keith Olbermann led his broadcast tonight with Spencer Ackerman’s report on John McCain’s most recent gaffe: in an interview with Katie Couric, McCain claimed “the surge” was responsible for the “Anbar Awakening” — which actually began in September, 2006, months before the surge was even announced.

The strange thing, as Keith notes, is that CBS edited the gaffe out of its broadcast. Fortunately, they posted a transcript — and video — online.

Once again, John McCain reveals the depth of his foreign policy expertise, and the media demonstrates its clear liberal bias…

But wait, there’s more - John McCain also demonstrates the depth of his commitment to the environment:

And I’d like to mention offshore drilling if I could. My friends, we have to drill offshore. We have to do it! Oil executives say within a couple years we could be seeing results from it. So why not do it?

Well, if the oil executives are in favor, that pretty much settles it, right?  I mean, who could possibly be more trustworthy on the subject of offshore drilling?

Add comment July 23rd, 2008 at 07:32am Posted by Eli

Wanker Of The Week

Okay, so he’s not nearly as bad as Michael “Autistic kids are whiny brats” Savage, but Ron Fournier is still pretty heinous:

Last week, we learned that while investigators for the House Oversight Committee were looking into the 2004 death of Cpl. Pat Tillman… they discovered that top political aide Karl Rove had exchanged emails with the Associated Press’ Ron Fournier on the day the news of Tillman’s death broke.

In one email, Rove asked, “How does our country continue to produce men and women like this?” Fournier responded: “The Lord creates men and women like this all over the world. But only the great and free countries allow them to flourish. Keep up the fight.”

(…)

Fournier, now the wire service’s D.C. bureau chief, shrugged off the embarrassing revelation, conceding only: “I regret the breezy nature of the correspondence.”

Of course, Fournier wasn’t simply being breezy. “Have a great weekend” — that’s “breezy.”

(…)

The Fournier revelation came as no surprise to anyone who has read his recent campaign work, which has routinely been caustic and dismissive of Democratic contenders. In two “Analysis” pieces and a column, Fournier questioned whether John Edwards was a “phony,” announced the Clintons suffered from “utter self-absorption,” and claimed that Barack Obama was “bordering on arrogance.” That’s the right of a pundit. But at the same time, Fournier avoided raising any doubts about Sen. John McCain, and in fact rushed to his aid in print during the senator’s time of campaign need.

(…)

Just in case this isn’t perfectly obvious, just in case people might be wondering if it’s common for objective political reporters to email partisan operatives off the record and behind the scenes, urging them to “keep up the fight,” the answer is a resounding no. Because it violates the basic journalistic guideline of maintaining neutrality. Especially at the AP, that kind of correspondence should be considered breathtakingly inappropriate.

Think about it: That year, Rove was engineering the president’s re-election — a campaign Fournier was covering as an AP reporter — and Fournier urged Rove to “keep up the fight”? Even if that phrase was not written in connection with the campaign, that kind of communication is just wrong. If Fournier could produce emails from 2004 in which he urged top Democratic strategists to “keep up the fight,” it would certainly remove doubts about his relationship with Rove, but I suspect Fournier cannot.

(…)

But let’s dig a little deeper: In his attempt to dismiss the Rove correspondence, Fournier said that the exchange came “in the course of following an important and compelling story” while he was an AP political reporter. Meaning Fournier was just doing his job.

Yet according to a search of Nexis, Fournier didn’t write any bylined articles about Pat Tillman’s death in April 2004. Or ever, for that matter. That means Fournier wasn’t reaching out as a reporter to Rove for information, quotes, or context about the sad Tillman story. Fournier didn’t need Rove to be a “source” for the Tillman story because Fournier wasn’t covering the Tillman story.

Instead, Fournier seemed to be using the Tillman story as an opportunity to initiate contact with Rove and let him know that Fournier was on his side, and to urge Rove to “keep up the fight.”

But wait, there’s more!  This is what separates a Wanker Of The Week from a mere Wanker Of The Day:

Warning Clinton during the primaries about the dangers of having a candidate’s character questioned by the press, Fournier noted that Al Gore got unfairly tagged during the 2000 presidential campaign for having claimed to have invented the Internet. Fournier patiently set the record straight, noting that Gore “never said he invented the Internet,” that “his mistake was to place himself more centrally than warranted at the creation of the technology,” and that “such nuance was lost on people who voted against him in 2000.”

Silly voters. But how on earth did they come to the false conclusion that Gore ever claimed to have invented the Internet? Answer: By reading Ron Fournier.

• “He [Gore] claimed credit for inventing the Internet, and comics had a punch line for months.” [November 13, 1999]
• “Gore, who once claimed to have invented the Internet, e-mailed Bush and said Democrats won’t air TV ads purchased with unlimited, unregulated donations called ’soft money’ unless Republicans do so first.” [March 15, 2000]

Awesome.  Ron Phonier is a wanker on so many levels.

Add comment July 22nd, 2008 at 09:22pm Posted by Eli

Not Entirely Sure What The Chait Is Going For…

He seems to be saying that yeah, McCain may be just as evil as Dubya, but at least he wouldn’t be an outright criminal if he were president:

The best aspect of a McCain presidency is that, while it would probably follow the policies of George W. Bush, it would put an end to the politics of Karl Rove. I went back and reread Michael Lewis’s 1997 New York Times Magazine profile of McCain, which gushed (persuasively) over McCain long before McCain- gushing had become a media cliché. You can see in it that, even before his first presidential campaign made him persona non grata in the GOP, McCain really was a highly bipartisan figure. The article cites McCain working unusually closely with Democrats, and quotes Democrats lavishing praise on him. He impugns his own party’s leadership as corrupt. He jokingly refers to his younger political self as a “freshman right-wing Nazi.” Conservative ideologues, as a rule, do not liken conservatism to national socialism.

Liberals tend to view the press’s love affair with McCain as a wildly unfair act of bias. They have a point. On the other hand, they should take some heart in the fact that McCain obviously cherishes the approval of the mainstream (and even liberal) media. His accessibility to the press and public is something small-d democrats should cheer. McCain has conducted interviews with very liberal publications like Grist. He’s promised to undertake an American version of “Prime Minister’s Questions,” whereby members of Congress could spar with him.

Does McCain spin and dissemble? Of course. But the current administration’s practices go far beyond mere spin. In Bush’s Washington, critics are enemies to be dismissed rather than engaged. A McCain presidency would promise to dismantle the whole Rovian method that has torn open such a deep wound in the national psyche.

Beneath his wildly fluctuating ideological positions, McCain is an establishmentarian Republican. Unlike Bush, he cares about elite opinion. He is comfortable sharing power in the traditional postwar style rather than monopolizing it. He might not be another Teddy Roosevelt, but right now another Gerald Ford doesn’t look so bad.

Sure, another Gerald Ford might not be so bad.  BUT THAT’S NOT WHAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT.

What we really need is another FDR, but that ain’t happening.

Add comment July 21st, 2008 at 07:54pm Posted by Eli

Stupid Or Evil?

It’s always so hard to tell with Republicans:

It is becoming increasingly clear that it is really one or the other; either John McCain is addled and confused in the face of trying to keep up with all that he must as a candidate for the most powerful position in the world, or he is a dishonorable cad that will blithely pass out confidential information and place important people’s lives in danger to serve his own vain powerlust.

The last time there was an insinuation made that McCain was confused and couldn’t keep things straight, there was much consternation and soiling of undergarments by the McCain camp and across the board covering of his butt by the mainstream media. (See here and here). But these are not occasional incidents with McCain. Sunni or Shia? Sudan or Somalia? He is for immigration reform or against it? Does Czeckloslavakia still exist or not (Um, no Senator, it ceased existence over 15 years ago, and you’ve been there since then more than once). And then there is this painful example of cognitive dysfunction.

Yesterday John McCain went all in with his chips of mental incompetence. From Reuters:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain commented on Friday on the unannounced timing of a high-security trip by Barack Obama to Iraq, saying he believed his Democratic rival was going this weekend.
…
“I believe that either today or tomorrow — and I’m not privy to his schedule — Sen. Obama will be landing in Iraq with some other senators” who make up a congressional delegation, McCain said at a Republican fund-raiser.

John McCain must have a far different definition of “high security” and “Senatorial courtesy” than has been known and understood throughout the history of this country. Apparently McCain not only doesn’t care about Obama’s safety, but has a similar disregard for the health and well being for the other fellow Congressional members with Obama on the trip, their staffers and the secret service personnel that have to protect all of them. As Teddy Partridge noted, this isn’t quite on the level of outing a covert CIA spy, but it is sure in the ballpark. For a comparison, consider how when Bush travels to Iraq they often don’t even tell the press, much less publicize the specific dates he will be going; pretty much the same for even lesser Bush Administration officials. McCain’s trips are kept secret as to most details for security reasons.

(…)

Irrespective of McCain’s motivation for callously leaking the details of Obama’s trip into the war zone, or the leaking source of his information, it was a foolish, ignorant and pathetically selfish act. Is McCain such an addled septuagenarian that he can’t help but make these fundamental errors? Does McCain not have the mental faculties remaining after all these years to keep even the most basic things straight? Perhaps he is just no longer up to the task.

Because it is either that or he is such a dishonorable vindictive cad that he did this intentionally. Which one is it Senator McCain, the citizens of this country deserve an answer once and for all. Either way, he is patently unfit for the job he is applying for, President of the United States.

You know, it could always be both…

Add comment July 19th, 2008 at 07:53pm Posted by Eli

Juxtaposition Of The Day

From the Washington Post:

The Air Force’s top leadership sought for three years to spend counterterrorism funds on “comfort capsules” to be installed on military planes that ferry senior officers and civilian leaders around the world, with at least four top generals involved in design details such as the color of the capsules’ carpet and leather chairs, according to internal e-mails and budget documents.

(…)

Air Force documents spell out how each of the capsules is to be “aesthetically pleasing and furnished to reflect the rank of the senior leaders using the capsule,” with beds, a couch, a table, a 37-inch flat-screen monitor with stereo speakers, and a full-length mirror.

(…)

Air Force officials say the program dates from a 2006 decision by Air Force Gen. Duncan J. McNabb that existing seats on transport planes, including some that match those on commercial airliners, may be fine for airmen and troops but inadequate for the top brass….

And from the NYT:

Shoddy electrical work by private contractors on United States military bases in Iraq is widespread and dangerous, causing more deaths and injuries from fires and shocks than the Pentagon has acknowledged, according to internal Army documents.

During just one six-month period — August 2006 through January 2007 — at least 283 electrical fires destroyed or damaged American military facilities in Iraq, including the military’s largest dining hall in the country, documents obtained by The New York Times show. Two soldiers died in an electrical fire at their base near Tikrit in 2006, the records note, while another was injured while jumping from a burning guard tower in May 2007.

And while the Pentagon has previously reported that 13 Americans have been electrocuted in Iraq, many more have been injured, some seriously, by shocks, according to the documents. A log compiled earlier this year at one building complex in Baghdad disclosed that soldiers complained of receiving electrical shocks in their living quarters on an almost daily basis.

Electrical problems were the most urgent noncombat safety hazard for soldiers in Iraq, according to an Army survey issued in February 2007. It noted “a safety threat theaterwide created by the poor-quality electrical fixtures procured and installed, sometimes incorrectly, thus resulting in a significant number of fires.”

The Army report said KBR, the Houston-based company that is responsible for providing basic services for American troops in Iraq, including housing, did its own study and found a “systemic problem” with electrical work.

But the Pentagon did little to address the issue until a Green Beret, Staff Sgt. Ryan D. Maseth, was electrocuted in January while showering. His death, caused by poor electrical grounding, drew the attention of lawmakers and Pentagon leaders after his family pushed for answers. Congress and the Pentagon’s inspector general have begun investigations, and this month senior Army officials ordered electrical inspections of all buildings in Iraq maintained by KBR.

(…)

Since the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, tens of thousands of American troops have been housed in Iraqi buildings that date from the Saddam Hussein era. KBR and other contractors have been paid millions of dollars to repair and upgrade the buildings, including their electrical systems. KBR officials say they handle the maintenance for 4,000 structures and an additional 35,000 containers used as housing in the war zone.

The reports of shoddy electrical work have raised new questions about the Bush administration’s heavy reliance on contractors in Iraq, particularly because they come after other high-profile disputes involving KBR. They include accusations of overbilling, providing unsafe water to soldiers and failing to protect female employees who were sexually assaulted.

Officials say the administration contracted out so much work in Iraq that companies like KBR were simply overwhelmed by the scale of the operations. Some of the electrical work, for example, was turned over to subcontractors, some of which hired unskilled Iraqis who were paid only a few dollars a day.

Government officials responsible for contract oversight, meanwhile, were also unable to keep up, so that unsafe electrical work was not challenged by government auditors.

Several electricians who worked for KBR have said previously in interviews that they repeatedly warned KBR managers and Pentagon and military officials about unsafe electrical work. They said that supervisors had ignored their concerns or, in some cases, lacked the training to understand the problems.

So, to sum up: The Pentagon spares no expense to make sure Air Force generals can fly anywhere in the lap of luxury, but can’t be bothered to ensure that Army grunts don’t get electrocuted in the shower.  Fantastic.  That should do wonders for morale.

So tell me again which troops it is we’re supposed to be supporting? ‘Cuz it seems like there might be some kind of minimum rank requirement.

Add comment July 18th, 2008 at 07:19am Posted by Eli

Wanker Of The Month

Michael Savage/Weiner:

Now, you want me to tell you my opinion on autism, since I’m not talking about autism? A fraud, a racket. For a long while, we were hearing that every minority child had asthma. Why did they sudden — why was there an asthma epidemic amongst minority children? Because I’ll tell you why: The children got extra welfare if they were disabled, and they got extra help in school. It was a money racket. Everyone went in and was told [fake cough], “When the nurse looks at you, you go [fake cough], ‘I don’t know, the dust got me.’ ” See, everyone had asthma from the minority community. That was number one.

Now, the illness du jour is autism. You know what autism is? I’ll tell you what autism is. In 99 percent of the cases, it’s a brat who hasn’t been told to cut the act out. That’s what autism is.

What do you mean they scream and they’re silent? They don’t have a father around to tell them, “Don’t act like a moron. You’ll get nowhere in life. Stop acting like a putz. Straighten up. Act like a man. Don’t sit there crying and screaming, idiot.”

Autism — everybody has an illness. If I behaved like a fool, my father called me a fool. And he said to me, “Don’t behave like a fool.” The worst thing he said — “Don’t behave like a fool. Don’t be anybody’s dummy. Don’t sound like an idiot. Don’t act like a girl. Don’t cry.” That’s what I was raised with. That’s what you should raise your children with. Stop with the sensitivity training. You’re turning your son into a girl, and you’re turning your nation into a nation of losers and beaten men. That’s why we have the politicians we have.

Oh. My. God.  So apparently autistic kids are all really just brats and sissies.  Good to know - and be sure to share this revelation with any parents of autistic kids who you might know.  I’m sure they’ll appreciate it.

Add comment July 17th, 2008 at 06:39pm Posted by Eli

Poor Adam Smith.

It really is classic Republicanism: Claim that regulation is oppressive and the free market is the only source of corporate accountability that we need, then rig the free market to remove the accountability.  Brilliant!

While the Republic burns due to the unsavory combination of incompetence, ideological rigidity, and crony capitalism, the fools and assclowns seem ever more determined to avoid any personal responsibility for the damages they have wrought. Instead, they flail about blindly, blaming everything and everyone — except their own horrific negligence.

(…)

As a nation, our institutions have failed us: Under Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve slept through the most reckless and irresponsible expansion of bank lending in history for reasons of ideological purity. His opposition to the Fed’s regulatory role reached the point of malfeasance long ago.  History is unlikely to be kind to the Maestro.

There is a choice to be made: Either we regulate the Banks, or leave it to the vagaries of the free markets to punish those who trade with, or place their assets in the wrong institutions. But for God’s sake, do not give us the worst of both worlds — do not allow banks the freedom to make horrific but preventable mistakes (i.e., only lending money to those who can pay it back), but then expect the taxpayers to foot the trillion dollar bill.

That’s not capitalism, its not socialism, its not regulation, and its sure as hell isn’t what free markets are. Our language is insufficient to describe this hodge-podge system, other than to call it a random patchwork of quasi-capitalism, quadrennial-socialism, and politics as usual. Ideological idiocy is the only phrase I can muster that has any resonance with the daily insanity.

(…)

Back in the States, something beyond cognitive dissonance is occurring — this is full blown case of dementia unfolding in the public sphere. When this era of excess and absurdity is treated by historians in the future, the question I expect to be asked most is not why many of these people weren’t jailed for their financial felonies. Rather, I expect them to wonder why so many of these folk weren’t placed in protective custody, and heavily medicated, for the only rational explanation for their statements and behaviors is that they have gone so far beyond the bend as to be completely and totally insane.

Massively over-leveraged companies? Blame short sellers.

Wildly under-capitalized financial firms? Blame rumors.

Heinously poor corporate management? Blame a Senator.

(…)

Books will be written about this period of time, and our descendants will wonder in awe as to how this was allowed to happen. Tulips got nothing on us! Its not just the total dollar value of the losses that have exceeded all other global fits of financial madness combined, but rather, how so many warning signs were so blithely ignored by so many and for so long. What was wrong with these people, the authors and historians will wonder. Did the antibiotics in the food supply drive them mad? Did the High Fructose Corn Syrup compromise their ability to think? Some form of viral plague? Roid rage? What else could have created such a mass delusion amongst not just the populace, but their leadership and institutions?

(…)

From beyond the grave, Adam Smith does not know whether to weep or retch.

I do have to disagree with the insanity-rather-than-criminality assessment, however.  These people are not insane, just greedy, selfish, short-sighted, and perfectly amoral.  And they’re running the show.

(h/t Ian)

Add comment July 17th, 2008 at 07:20am Posted by Eli

More Of The Comedy Stylings Of Senator John McCain

Think Progress has a golden oldie for those of you who are getting a little tired of jokes about killing Iranians:

The blog Rum, Romanism and Rebellion pulls out a 1986 Tucson Citizen article recounting a joke about rape told by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). Speaking to the National League of Cities and Towns in Washington, DC, McCain allegedly said:

Did you hear the one about the woman who is attacked on the street by a gorilla, beaten senseless, raped repeatedly and left to die? When she finally regains consciousness and tries to speak, her doctor leans over to hear her sigh contently and to feebly ask, “Where is that marvelous ape?”

You know, I’m actually not entirely sure whether that even qualifies as a joke.  It’s certainly more clever than “At least I don’t plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt,” but probably not quite as clever as “Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?  Because her father is Janet Reno.”

So, um, any Hillary supporters who were taken in by McCain’s outreach after Obama clinched the nomination?  You, ah, might want to rethink that.

Add comment July 15th, 2008 at 07:44pm Posted by Eli

$4.11 Changed Everything!

Well, it looks like the Republican “Lease Drill Everywhere!” plan is gaining some traction:

Now, polling is beginning to show that a rising share of the public is ready to drill, drill, drill — threatening to destroy precious and unique wildlife areas like the Arctic refuge and create more oil spills along the Gulf coasts. Worse, drilling is a distraction from real changes like massive investments in wind and solar power.

In February, Pew asked the public in a poll whether they favor drilling in the Arctic refuge. At that time 42 percent favored and 50 percent opposed. Now, in July, 50 percent favor drilling and only 43 percent oppose. That’s a 12-point change since the February survey and a 28-point swing since a March 2002 Gallup poll (where 35 percent favored and 56 percent opposed).

The shift is something to be concerned about — progressives are losing ground with the public on drilling. These are alarming gains in sympathy for the plans of Big Oil.

This change isn’t because the idea has gotten better — Arctic drilling might cut gas prices by a mere 4 cents a decade from now. It is because of a sophisticated communications campaign by the oil companies and the Republican Party that is mostly met with silence by the other side — by our side.

I think it’s not just the communications campaign - it’s the fear and desperation of the American public as gas prices cross the $4 threshold and keep climbing with no relief in sight.

This reminds me of nothing so much as the way Republicans have exploited (and fomented) fear and hysteria about terrorism to sell a series of terrible policies (warrantless wiretapping, invasion of Iraq, torture, suspension of habeas corpus, etc.) on the grounds that they would keep us safe from the Scary Terrorists.  Of course, none of these policies did any such thing, and most of them made the underlying problem even worse.  But they sure did make Bush and his cronies a lot more powerful and a lot more rich.

And now, here we are again, with an American people up in arms about gas prices and begging for someone to do something, anything.  And that’s exactly what the Republicans are offering: Bold, decisive action.  So what if it won’t provide any actual relief - it’s better than no action at all, right?  And conservation and alternative energy strategies are sooo boring and lame.  Real red-blooded Americans drill and exploit and take, just like real red-blooded Americans kill and torture and spy and… detain indefinitely without recourse to legal counsel.

I expect the “Drill Everywhere” strategy will work out about as well as the Iraqupation - maybe even worse, since it’s our own country we’ll be destroying.

2 comments July 14th, 2008 at 08:08pm Posted by Eli

More Willful Stupidity

Okay, this is really complicated, so please try to follow along with me here:

Saying that McCain’s military service does not qualify him for the presidency is not the same as saying that it disqualifies him from the presidency.  Nor is it the same as saying that his military service is bogus in any way.

Also, as McCain Source points out, McCain himself agrees with Clark.

But no, saying that getting shot down and taken prisoner and tortured for five years doesn’t qualify you to be president is the same as saying that Kerry lied about his service in Vietnam and shot himself to get a Purple Heart.  Awesome.

Add comment July 1st, 2008 at 08:59am Posted by Eli

Lieberman Looks Back To The Future

Shorter Joe Lieberman:

When the terrorists hit us in 2009, we need to have a president who is willing to seize unprecedented unconstitutional powers for his own and his party’s gain, and John McCain is that man.

That is what “keeping us safe” has become code for, isn’t it?

4 comments June 30th, 2008 at 09:05am Posted by Eli

Too Good To Be True

This has to be parody.  Has to be:

[C]heck out who introduced/sponsored the latest version of the Constitutional Marriage Amendment:

110th CONGRESS
2d Session
S. J. RES. 43

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 25, 2008

Mr. WICKER (for himself, Mr. VITTER, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. ALLARD, Mr. THUNE, and Mr. SHELBY) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

(…)

Section 1. This article may be cited as the Marriage Protection Amendment.

Section 2. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

Wow.  Just wow.  I guess I can kind of see the logic, though.  As long as the gays can’t get married, straight marriages will be stronger, and thus better able to withstand the occasional indiscretion.

Like, say, cavorting with hookers while wearing a diaper, or using foot signals to pick up guys in the men’s room.  As long as the gays can’t get married, that stuff is a-okay with the missus, but if gays and lesbians start getting hitched, well… watch your back.

Add comment June 27th, 2008 at 09:23pm Posted by Eli

Promising, If True

I’m not a real big fan of Harry Reid’s, but I have to say I like the sound of this (subscription only):

Since then, Reid has regularly kept the Senate operating over recesses. Additionally, he has made plain that he no longer plans to confirm any partisan Bush nominee whose appointment would tip the balance of a particular board or association to the GOP, and whose term stretches beyond the president’s tenure.

That should have been his policy all along, really.  It’s at the end of a story about Reid making a deal to confirm a whole bunch of nominees (both Republican and Democrat) to the SEC, Federal Reserve Board Of Governors, FEMA, State, DOJ, and various ambassadorships.  But I’m glad to see that he’s finally putting some limits on how much damage the lame duck can inflict past January 2009.

Add comment June 27th, 2008 at 08:21pm Posted by Eli

Great Moments In Negative Campaigning

Well. Dick Zimmer, Frank Lautenberg’s Republican Senate opponent, has hit back hard against Lautenberg’s vote against cloture on the awful FISA “compromise”:

Press Release

LAUTENBERG VOTES TO TAKE AWAY TOOLS TO TRACK DOWN TERRORISTS

By ZimmerforSenate - June 26, 2008 - 12:49pm

Tags: DICK ZIMMER, U.S. Senate, Frank Lautenberg,Top Story: Breaking,

Release Date: Jun 26 2008

Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:”Table Normal”; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:”"; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

Now, I know there’s a lot of opaque political jargon in this statement, but I’m going to take a stab at unpacking some of the highlights:

o Frank Lautenberg pretends to be a normal person, but is actually a serial liar.

o Frank Lautenberg wants to tell us how to behave, and define what style clothes we can wear, and what kind of tables we can eat off of.

o Frank Lautenberg is frequently a no-show for important floor votes. (Either that, or he’s an absentee parent; like I said, this political jargon can be pretty tricky.)

o Frank Lautenberg padded his resume with bogus achievements (or, alternatively, is padding his campaign funds with cash from from questionable sources).

o Frank Lautenberg hates widows, orphans, and families.

o Frank Lautenberg is so imperious and bloodthirsty that he’s like a modern-day version of an ancient Roman.

o Frank Lautenberg is a tool of shadowy Far Eastern interests who want to subjugate the US and force us to speak their language.

I look forward to seeing Lautenberg respond to these allegations, hopefully in the same kind of highly charged political language.

(h/t Blue Jersey)

Add comment June 26th, 2008 at 06:23pm Posted by Eli

Dispatches From Bizarro World

Today’s installment is from one of Bizarro World’s leading citizens, Rush Limbaugh:

You want to know why the Republicans are willing to say, “Screw you,” to 30 percent or more of their voters and yet Democrats will bend over, grab the ankles, and say, “Have your way with me,” for 10 percent and 2 percent of the population [black people and gays]?

(…)

There is an answer to your — basic question is, “Why don’t the Democrats say, ‘To hell with you, you wacko nuts in the base,’ like Republicans do?”

(…)

The — there’s a complicated answer to this… but one of the simple answers that will require some elaboration is that a lot of money is coming from these kooks — and I’m not talking about just the blacks — I’m talking about a whole kook-fringe base because George Soros is running it… and they need the money.

(…)

…[T]he Republican Party, especially as currently constituted, is doing its best to deemphasize the importance or the influence of the traditional conservative base, which is not just the so-called evangelical Christian Right or the pro-lifers or whatever. But you have all kinds of people in the Republican base that are conservatives, from values conservatives, social conservatives, even fiscal economic conservatives. Conservatism has been the base of the Republican Party and because the conservative base does include pro-lifers and because many of them are from the South, there are many in the Northeastern corridors of power in the Republican Party who are embarrassed to be in the party with those people.

(…)

…[T]he politically active gay community on the left is worth a lot of money. These people send the Democrats more money than you can possibly imagine. A lot of it from Hollywood, and the arts and entertainment. They’re not — money — you know, key number one, you might be saying, well, don’t the pro-lifers donate a lot of money to the Republicans? Yeah. Yeah, they do. But it still embarrasses them. It still embarrasses a lot of the country club Rockefeller types.

The Democrats — what are they embarrassed about? They’re not embarrassed about anything. The Democrats have never set any standards for themselves. As far as they’re concerned, everybody’s a victim, even on their side. So, I mean, yeah, these victims are just fighting to be heard. Fighting for their rights, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. The conservative rights — conservative right is viewed as trying to deny people rights, blah, blah, blah, you see.

But in addition to the money aspect of this — and don’t forget, the left-wing base is not even talked about by Mickey Edwards there — is the anti-war kook fringe. And it is huge. From MoveOn.org to Think Progress to My Base Book — whatever these things, these things — well, maybe not MySpace or Face, whatever it is. But, there are so many of these 527 groups out there that are just raising money left and right and the Democrats are scared to death if these people take their money and go away or go to a third party or what have you. And so they will cater to them left and right.

Wow.  That almost makes me wish I lived in Rush Limbaugh’s universe, where Democrats bend over backwards (or, if you’re Rush, forwards) for their progressive base while Republicans tell conservatives to get lost.  Because George Soros and the Hollywood gay community give progressives such a huge money advantage over conservatives, who only have the world of corporations and ultra-rich people to draw from.  Those poor conservatives, they can never get a seat at the table, and progressives are in control of everything.

Which is why the Democratic Congress allows the Iraqupation to continue, and is inches away from passing a FISA revision which gives Dubya all the spying powers and unaccountability for past spying crimes he could have ever wanted.

But other than the clueless reference to “My Base Book,” I think my favorite bit is the part about how huge the “anti-war kook fringe” is.  Well, yeah, it’s huge - about 60-70% of the country are anti-war kooks now.  And they are so totally calling the shots, too.

1 comment June 26th, 2008 at 07:09am Posted by Eli

Siegelman Is Just The Tip Of The Iceberg

Okay, read this (it’s too long to excerpt, but it’s incredible stuff) and then try to tell me that the Bush administration, and the GOP in general, aren’t completely, utterly, totally corrupt.

In addition to the baldness of the corruption, I was also struck by the sheer meanspiritedness of it.  It wasn’t enough to simply sideline their opponents; they had to punish and humiliate them, too.  Charming, lovely people, these Republicans.

Add comment June 24th, 2008 at 10:03pm Posted by Eli

How To Tell When Your Brand Is In The Toilet

This is really pathetic.  If they weren’t such wankers, I’d almost feel sorry for them:

Yup, Dino Rossi’s refusal to identify himself as a “Republican” is so transparently ridiculous that even FOX News is calling his bullshit.

Rossi dismisses the criticism by claiming he used the GOP moniker four years ago (new campaign slogan: “Deceiving voters since 2004″), though that’s not how he identified himself in the voters pamphlet last time around….

Makes you wish Rossi were a straight shooter like Republican GOP Party unaffiliated Insurance Commissioner candidate Curtis Fackler, the chairman of the Spokane County Republican Party, who publicly frets about folks who “won’t vote for a Republican no matter what.”

“And we wanted to get around that,” he frankly told FOX News.

Yes, whatever you do, don’t admit that you’re actually Republicans.  Their esprit d ecorps is trés impressive.

(I suppose he could always go with the “Washington For Rossi Party”…)

Add comment June 24th, 2008 at 09:03pm Posted by Eli

Which Is Better?

Would you rather have a right-wing Democratic wanker like Chris Carney who reliably votes with Republicans as your congresscritter, or an actual Republican?

I would argue that as long as the Democratic majority is not in danger, it is much better to have a true Republican in that seat, at least for the moment.  Why?  Two reasons:

1) Let their idiocy contribute to trashing the Republican brand instead of the Democratic one.  Bush Dogs like Carney contribute to the negative popular image of Democrats as feckless and ineffectual.

2) It’s not easy, but it’s easier for a progressive candidate to knock off a Republican incumbent than a Democratic one.  They’re not fighting the Democratic party leadership, and they’re going up against an opponent whose party’s brand is even more in the toilet than the Democrats’.  I think a lot of Bush Dogs are Democrats solely for that reason.

If you want to be a Democrat, then be a Democrat.  If not, then go join the other team.  I wish there was a mechanism to “excommunicate” the worst offenders, so that the DCCC & DSCC, and individual Democrats, would all refuse to support them in either general or primary elections.  How might the 2006 CT-SEN election might have turned out if such a policy were in place against Lieberman, I wonder.

(h/t Howie)

Add comment June 18th, 2008 at 06:52am Posted by Eli

Stay Classy, Republicans!

Anti-Obama button being sold at the Republican convention in Texas:

Rush Limbaugh plays compare-and-contrast:

I look at Iowa, I look at Illinois—I want to see the murders. I want to see the looting. I want to see all the stuff that happened in New Orleans. I see devastation in Iowa and Illinois that dwarfs what happened in New Orleans.  I see people working together. I see people trying to save their property…I don’t see a bunch of people running around waving guns at helicopters, I don’t see a bunch of people running shooting cops. I don’t see a bunch of people raping people on the street. I don’t see a bunch of people doing everything they can…whining and moaning—where’s FEMA, where’s BUSH. I see the heartland of America. When I look at Iowa and when I look at Illinois, I see the backbone of America.

And finally, a Republican Congressional candidate shows his appreciation for high school girls’ sports:

The state champion girls volleyball team of Mercy High School in Cincinnati was in the Senate chamber recently to receive a resolution recognizing their accomplishment.

They had gathered around State Sen. Eric Kearney, D-Cincinnati, causing fellow Sen. Steve Stivers, R-Columbus, to comment that Kearney “attracts all the attractive women.”

Reminded that he had just returned from his honeymoon after marrying the former Karen Tabor two weeks earlier, Stivers backpedaled.

“I’m allowed to window shop, just not buy,” he said.

Awesome.  I don’t know we ever win any elections from the Family Values Party.

1 comment June 17th, 2008 at 11:14pm Posted by Eli

A Whole Bushel Of Bad Apples

This is a lot like that report out of the Senate Intelligence Committee - you know, the one saying that BushCo. knowingly lied about the intelligence they had against Iraq before the invasion:

A Senate investigation has concluded that top Pentagon officials began assembling lists of harsh interrogation techniques in the summer of 2002 for use on detainees at Guantanamo Bay and that those officials later cited memos from field commanders to suggest that the proposals originated far down the chain of command, according to congressional sources briefed on the findings.

The sources said that memos and other evidence obtained during the inquiry show that officials in the office of then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld started to research the use of waterboarding, stress positions, sensory deprivation and other practices in July 2002, months before memos from commanders at the detention facility in Cuba requested permission to use those measures on suspected terrorists.

The reported evidence — some of which is expected to be made public at a Senate hearing today — also shows that military lawyers raised strong concerns about the legality of the practices as early as November 2002, a month before Rumsfeld approved them. The findings contradict previous accounts by top Bush administration appointees, setting the stage for new clashes between the White House and Congress over the origins of interrogation methods that many lawmakers regard as torture and possibly illegal.

“Some have suggested that detainee abuses committed by U.S. personnel at Abu Ghraib in Iraq and at Guantanamo were the result of a ‘few bad apples’ acting on their own. It would be a lot easier to accept if that were true,” Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, wrote in a statement for delivery at a committee hearing this morning. “Senior officials in the United States government sought out information on aggressive techniques, twisted the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees.”

(…)

[M]emos and e-mails obtained by investigators reveal that in July 2002, Haynes and other Pentagon officials were soliciting ideas for harsh interrogations from military experts in survival training, according to two congressional officials familiar with the committee’s investigation. By late July, a list was compiled that included many of the techniques that would later be formally approved for use at Guantanamo Bay, including stress positions, sleep deprivation and the hooding of detainees during questioning. The techniques were later used at the Abu Ghraib detention facility in Iraq.

(…)

The Guantanamo Bay visit and the effort to compile interrogation tactics appear to show that Pentagon officials were moving toward a formal policy on interrogation before military commanders at the detention camp requested special measures, the officials said. However, top military officers objected to the proposals in a series of memos in November 2002, much earlier than previously reported, congressional investigators said. In early 2003, Rumsfeld formally authorized the techniques for use at Guantanamo Bay.

(…)

“It is increasingly clear that the decision to abandon the rule of law and order torture and abuse was made at the very top,” said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington legislative office. “We look forward to the full investigative report from the Armed Services Committee and call on Congress to hold accountable any and all public officials involved in ordering illegal torture.”

A group of 56 Congressional Democrats last week asked the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel to investigate whether any Bush administration officials may have broken laws in approving the use of harsh interrogation techniques for suspected terrorists.

As with the Senate Intelligence report, this pretty much just confirms and documents what we already knew, and what the Bush administration has been consistently lying about.  In this case, it’s the fact that torture is official BushCo. policy, and they’ve been lying about it all along.

Can’t wait to hear John “I Hate Torture But Voted For It Anyway” McCain’s reaction to this.

Add comment June 17th, 2008 at 06:59am Posted by Eli

Profiles Incompetence: The McCain Campaign Strikes Again

Oh, come on.  You can’t tell me these people aren’t deliberately trying to sabotage him:

ABC’s Rick Klein reports: Sen. John McCain on Friday  abruptly cancelled a Monday fundraiser that had been scheduled at the home of a Texas oilman, after ABC News contacted the campaign inquiring about a verbal blunder the Texan made during an unsuccessful 1990 campaign for governor.

Clayton Williams stirred controversy during his 1990 campaign for governor of Texas with a botched attempt at humor in which he compared rape to weather. Within earshot of a reporter, Williams said: “As long as it’s inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it.”

His Democratic opponent at the time, the late Ann Richards… highlighted the comments in a TV ad during that 1990 campaign. View the ad HERE.

McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers said the Monday event was being cancelled, given the offensive comments. He said he could not yet say what McCain would do with donations brought into the campaign by Williams.

“These were obviously incredibly offensive remarks that the campaign was unaware of at the time this event was scheduled,” Rogers said. He added that Williams apologized for the comments back in 1990, but he said that does not excuse them.

Williams told the Midland Reporter-Telegram recently that he had already raised more than $300,000 for McCain and the fundraiser to be held at his home in Midland. Williams said that he needed to help McCain raise money to stop an Obama campaign that would enact “socialist” policies if elected to office.

Can someone explain to me how absolutely no-one on McCain’s team, or in the Texas GOP, heard Clayton Williams’ name and didn’t immediately think, “Oh yeah, the lie-back-and-enjoy-it guy - maybe we don’t want McCain associated with him, especially when he’s trying to sucker woo disgruntled Hillary supporters”?

I can only hope that the McCain campaign excercises this same kind of diligence and attention to detail when they’re vetting potential running mates.  I think David Duke and Mark Foley are available…

Add comment June 14th, 2008 at 12:39pm Posted by Eli

A Rising Tide Lifts All Votes

EJ Dionne notes some very interesting and encouraging poll numbers, which I believe may be even more encouraging than he thinks:

In a report released yesterday, Gallup found that where McCain was winning 85 percent of self-identified Republicans, Obama was winning only 78 percent of Democrats.

Yet Obama led McCain 48 percent to 42 percent in the survey, which was conducted June 5-10. Obama enjoyed a seven-point advantage among independents, but Gallup noted that even when independents were excluded, Obama still had a five-point lead because Democrats now outnumber Republicans 37 to 28 percent. When independents were asked their partisan leanings, the Democratic advantage reached 13 points.

In 2004, Kerry carried 89 percent of the vote among self-identified Democrats, according to the network exit poll, but Democrats and Republicans accounted for equal shares of the electorate. President Bush won with an even larger share (93 percent) of supporters of his own party.

(…)

The good news for McCain is that this year he has consistently run ahead of his party. The bad news is that the GOP is in such a deep hole McCain may not be able to climb out. When voters in a recent NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll were asked, without candidates’ names, which party they wanted in the White House, Democrats had a 16-point lead. But when they were asked to choose between Obama and McCain, Obama led by only six points.

Here’s the thing, though: These polls were taken right at the very end of the primary process, when there were still a lot of Clinton supporters who were pretty much hating Obama’s guts.  While there will certainly be some stubborn diehards who will never vote for Obama no matter what, I think that most of Hillary’s supporters will eventually come around, especially if Hillary works to bring them around.

In other words, I think that 78% number is pretty much the floor for Obama, and it’s going to keep rising as the election draws closer.  If the party identification numbers hold, and if Obama can get close to the 89% range that Kerry got, then Obama should win pretty handily.  Maybe enough to claim a mandate, even…

Add comment June 14th, 2008 at 10:17am Posted by Eli

Well, Which Is It?

From Paul Alexander’s new biography of Karl Rove:

“Every Republican I know looks at the Bush administration as a total failure,” said Matt Towery, chairman of Newt Gingrich’s political organization.

“To do what he did politically to us is unforgivable,” Rep. Tom Tancredo told Alexander. “It will take generations to recover. I don’t know how long; maybe never.”

“I think the legacy is that Karl Rove will be a name that’ll be used for a long, long time as an example of how not to do it,” said long-time GOP strategist Ed Rollins.

National Journal, reporting on the McCain campaign:

“Generally speaking, Rove’s advice is action-oriented and useful,” said another senior consultant to the McCain camp. “It’s always well received.” This McCain adviser noted that Rove talks periodically to Black and a few other top campaign aides on several key matters. “It can be policy ideas, messaging ideas, fundraising prospects, or people who need calls from someone in the campaign.” Rove is “part of the information network that the campaign has,” this adviser said, adding that Rove talks fairly regularly to such key people as Wayne Berman, a major fundraiser for McCain; Nicolle Wallace, a communications adviser; and Steve Schmidt, a senior aide.

Seems like there might be some difference of opinion on whether Karl Rove and his math are an asset or a liability.  I guess we shouldn’t be surprised when the McCain campaign goes all-in on fearmongering, hateful smears, and impugning “Democrat” patriotism.  I can hardly wait.

Add comment June 13th, 2008 at 06:45pm Posted by Eli

The Value Of Regulation

Krugman has a great post today slamming the Republicans’ hostility to all forms of regulation - and not just on our terms (i.e., allowing poisonous food and predatory business practices is bad), but on their own as well:

[W]hen Grover Norquist, the anti-tax advocate, was asked about his ultimate goal, he replied that he wanted a restoration of the way America was “up until Teddy Roosevelt, when the socialists took over. The income tax, the death tax, regulation, all that.”

The late Milton Friedman agreed, calling for the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration. It was unnecessary, he argued: private companies would avoid taking risks with public health to safeguard their reputations and to avoid damaging class-action lawsuits. (Friedman, unlike almost every other conservative I can think of, viewed lawyers as the guardians of free-market capitalism.)

Such hard-core opponents of regulation were once part of the political fringe, but with the rise of modern movement conservatism they moved into the corridors of power. They never had enough votes to abolish the F.D.A. or eliminate meat inspections, but they could and did set about making the agencies charged with ensuring food safety ineffective.

(…)

One amazing decision came in 2004, when a Kansas producer asked for permission to test its own cows, so that it could resume exports to Japan. You might have expected the Bush administration to applaud this example of self-regulation. But permission was denied, because other beef producers feared consumer demands that they follow suit.

When push comes to shove, it seems, the imperatives of crony capitalism trump professed faith in free markets.

(…)

The ironic thing is that the Agriculture Department’s deference to the beef industry actually ended up backfiring: because potential foreign buyers didn’t trust our safety measures, beef producers spent years excluded from their most important overseas markets.

But then, the same thing can be said of other cases in which the administration stood in the way of effective regulation. Most notably, the administration’s refusal to countenance any restraints on predatory lending helped prepare the ground for the subprime crisis, which has cost the financial industry far more than it ever made on overpriced loans.

The moral of this story is that failure to regulate effectively isn’t just bad for consumers, it’s bad for business.

It’s amazing that even after so many clear-cut examples where “the market” did not prevent negligence or outright criminality, and even worked against business interests as well as consumer interests, that Republicans still will not admit that deregulation is actually not such a great idea.

Did I say “amazing”?  I meant “completely unsurprising and depressing.”

3 comments June 13th, 2008 at 06:55am Posted by Eli

Wanker Of The Day

Bill O’Reilly:

During the June 10 edition of Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor, purporting to document “more evidence of values problem among American young people,” host Bill O’Reilly reported that seven ninth-graders at Pascack Valley High School in New Jersey have been suspended for distributing topless photographs of their classmates…. O’Reilly… stated: “But it’s an amazing amount of kids involved with this — 20 — in an affluent school district. This isn’t, you know, the inner city; you would think that these kids would have some kind of a values system.” O’Reilly continued: “It’s not that it’s so horrendous. You know, it’s not murder or rape. But it’s so stupid.”

Yes, apparently inner-city kids have no values system whatsoever, and O’Reilly is shocked by the idea that rich white kids could behave immorally or idiotically.  Because that never happens.

Add comment June 12th, 2008 at 07:21am Posted by Eli

Playing The Age Card

Well, it looks like this is something to look forward: Any time a Democrat says that McCain literally doesn’t know what he’s talking about, the media, Republicans and the McCain campaign are going to cry ageism:

I can appreciate the fact that the McCain campaign and Republicans in general are a little touchy about the senator’s age — running to be the oldest president in U.S. history will do that — but that’s no reason to characterize every critical adjective in the language as some kind of slight about McCain’s septuagenarian status.

Poll after poll shows that more voters trust Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., on matters of national security than they do Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois. Hoping to bridge that chasm, the Obama campaign and Democrats harped on comments McCain made on the Today show this morning, repeatedly calling the 71-year-old presumptive GOP presidential nominee “confused,” seeming to feed into concerns voters might have about the Arizonan’s age.

After McCain said this morning that it’s “not too important” when U.S. troops come home from Iraq, Obama aide Susan Rice said on a conference call that McCain’s comments reveal a “real confusion and lack of understanding of the situation in Iraq” and the larger region. She added that McCain’s series of errors of fact and judgment are “reflective of a pattern of lack of understanding and lack of strategic depth.”

Reporters, apparently having internalized McCain’s talking points, asked Rice if she was attacking McCain’s age by calling him “confused.” She responded, “[W]hat I meant by that is very simple — on critical, factual questions that are fundamental to understanding what’s going on in Iraq and the region, Sen. McCain has gotten it wrong. And not just once but repeatedly.”

This comes a month after Obama, responding to an ugly attack by McCain about Hamas, told CNN, “[F]or him to toss out comments like that I think is an example of him losing his bearings as he pursues this nomination.” McCain, Lieberman, and their GOP allies said this was a shot at McCain’s age.

Look, this is silly. Every criticism is not a veiled reference to McCain turning 72. “Losing his bearings” has nothing to do with age — it refers to someone who has lost their way. They’re off track. They’re moving in the wrong direction. Likewise, people of all ages get “confused.”

Maybe McCain and the media can draw up a list of acceptable adjectives that McCain critics can use?

(…)

Tell you what, reporters and McCain campaign, pick a better adjective for us. “Confused” sounds like an attack on his age? Fine. You tell me. Befuddled? Bewildered? Baffled?

The problem isn’t that McCain’s critics are picking loaded terms; the problem is McCain doesn’t seem to know what he’s talking about when it comes to his signature issue.

Why we’re not supposed to mention this is a mystery. I guess I’m confused.

Of course, it’s not about word choice, it’s about making Democrats afraid to point out that McCain is either lying, stupid, or flat-out crazy, which he often is.  Take that line of attack away, and what do we have left?

Add comment June 11th, 2008 at 08:46pm Posted by Eli

In Soviet America, Media Censors YOU!

(If the conservatives can call us fascists, then surely we can call them communists)

Here’s a paragraph from an NYT editorial on media censorship in Russia. Does it sound a little… familiar?

Equally insidious as government censorship is the growing self-censorship among Russian journalists. The fear, mostly of losing their jobs, is especially true at national television networks, where most Russians get their information. News about Chechnya or Georgia or Iran now follows the government line. Mr. Putin’s opponents or Mr. Medvedev’s critics are viewed as un-newsworthy, and public affairs shows on Russian television are growing more like those in the Soviet days when “news” meant reading a handout from the Kremlin.

It’s downright uncanny.

Add comment June 9th, 2008 at 09:45pm Posted by Eli

I May Have Just Coined A New Word

Pwnography.

It’s like Schadenfreude, only dirtier.

Add comment June 8th, 2008 at 11:52pm Posted by Eli

Supporting The Troops… Dubya-Style

Yeah, Dubya loves the troops so much that he’s using them as hostages…

President Bush is threatening the lives of American troops if Congress doesn’t give him the money he wants for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan….  The Commander-in-Chief  has also pledged to stop paying troops in combat if America’s wallet isn’t handed over straightaway.

From The Hill:

Bush said that if Congress does not act promptly, “critical accounts at the Department of Defense will soon run dry.” He added that civilian employees may face “temporary layoffs,” and the Pentagon would be forced to “close down a vital program that is getting potential insurgents off the streets and into jobs.” If the supplemental spending bill is not enacted after July, Bush said, the department would “no longer be able to pay our troops,” including ones in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I just want to be clear about two points:

1. Insurgents kill Americans.  So when the President says that the Pentagon would be forced to “close down” a program that gets “potential insurgents off the streets,” he’s really saying that he’ll deliberately allow the threat to American troops in Iraq increase if he doesn’t get his money.  He’s playing chicken with Congress at the expense of American lives in Iraq.  Make no mistake about it: More insurgents on the streets would lead to more American deaths.

(…)

2. Bush is also threatening to stop paying troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.  This is funny, because I don’t hear him threatening to cut the contracts of Halliburton, Blackwater, SAIC, and DynCorp–and thus cutting their employees’ inflated salaries.

This is a clear indication that the Bush administration is more loyal to contractors than to soldiers. When forced to cut spending, Bush would rather starve members of the Armed Forces than cut the exorbitant pay checks given to those who work for privatized military companies.

Impeachment is too late at this point, but there’s no reason that this appalling behavior shouldn’t be hung around John McCain’s neck–thus ensuring that the betrayal of the American military doesn’t extend past January 2009.

At the very least, Obama needs to put McCain on the spot and force him to either repudiate Bush on this and pledge that he would never make these kinds of threats if he became president.  Either McCain helps pressure Dubya to abandon this stance, or he clings to him and destroys what’s left of his own pro-troop, independent-from-Dubya reputation even further (opposing the new GI Bill really didn’t help).

True, it’d be giving McCain an opportunity to score some points at Dubya’s expense, but I don’t think he’d take it.

2 comments June 8th, 2008 at 01:13pm Posted by Eli