Rudy Quote of the YEAR

Friday: 1 U.S. Soldier, 21 Iraqis Killed; 9 Iraqis Wounded; 30 Iraqis Kidnapped
Thursday: 2 GIs, 30 Iraqis Killed; 48 Iraqis Wounded
Wednesday: 14 Iraqis Killed, 52 Wounded

It's fascinating when the Bush-Bots at Townhall.com invoke the thought that Rudy being such a flaming jerk to his wife, kids and his whole city when he was having his affair with Judi makes Bill Clinton look like a choir boy.

The public has the right to wonder, "Should I have to pay if a President Giuliani wants to hide from his wife the fact that he's giving the high hard one to some new tail?"

-- The Rude One

Refresh my memory, but Slick Willie's travel office kerfluffle didn't involve using the secret service to spirit Monica anywhere on Air Force One, did it?

Just checking . . .

Of course, I always took the same position as Mel Brooks: Let 'em have a mistress. If they aren't doing to her, they'll do it to us.

This is still America, the place that locks up Paris Hilton, would televise the live stoning of Britany Spears for not duct-taping her kid into a car seat, and let's O.J. and Scooter Libby walk free.

I know this stuff about Rudy's shady dealings with actual terrorist supporters -- sheiks with cash and not just liberal pundits -- should mean more than a tawdry sexcapade. But let's face it: when throwing mud, the juicier the wad, the more likely it is to stick.

The GOP Debate and a Tax History Lesson

When Romney (Net Worth $190-250+ Million) said he wanted to throw something at the TV when John Edwards (NW "only" $29.5 Mil, a couple of million more than George W. Bush) talks of 2 Americas, this pompous ass who was born to unfathomable wealth states that Edwards, who earned every dime, and the rest of the Democrats are trying to divide America when in actuality Edwards' goal is to bridge the divide that already exists. Romney would have you believe there is no divide, and that he is a man of the people, just regular folk who happen to be among the elite 1% of the filthy rich.

And people are buying this?

At least Edwards admits that it's a lot different for people with Tens of millions in the bank than the average citizen who has a net worth less than six figures. Romney wants you to believe that someone with Hundreds of Millions, most of which was handed to him, is no different than you or I in their perspective and priorities.

Hogwash. The game is rigged. Edwards is pointing out the obvious, and Romney is either deluded or trying to delude you. If you buy that BS, shame on you.

Tickle-down economics and the attitude that deficits don't matter are at the core of the doublespeak enshrined in the Republican mantra. These are lies.

When asked about the trouble social security might be in due to the trillion of dollars the government has taken from the fund, the GOP candidates, all of them, cry about the entitlements of social security and medicare and cutting waste here and earmarks there. What they never, ever, ever address (except Ron Paul) is that just the interest on the colossal debt -- the "third" entitlement -- will overtake both of those successful and otherwise fully funded social programs in short order. Yet it's Hillary they attack, who can rightfully be associated with the first surplus since Andrew Jackson, the first chance to reduce the debt's principle. Outrageous!

And their solution? Cut taxes even more, during war, two wars, while the dollar itself is systematically deflated. Wow, just wow.

Since Ronald Reagan took his last nap in the White House Situation Room, we've been fighting over a marginal difference in tax rates of about 12 points, give or take. That's all. Twelve lousy percentage point are the cause of all the demonization and hyperbole that warrant the GOP calling Democrats commies and us self-righteous liberals justify painting conservatives as heartless fascists. (Okay, there are other reasons they are a bunch of hate-mongering thieves, but let's stick to taxes for now.)

Back in Eisenhower's day the top bracket paid 90 frickin per-cent! Now the top pays what? 35%? Less since that rate doesn't apply to the first $175,000 you earn. Hedge fund managers paying only 15% are fighting to keep that loophole alive, and they want even more tax cuts. Puh-Leeze.

Bush the Elder agreed to raise the top bracket a measly 2%, but more than doubled the amount you could make before you paid the highest amount, which sounds fair -- and you would've thought the world ended. Clinton raised the top bracket another 8.6% and we've never heard the end of it. But you could make a quarter mill before that kicked in. Shrubster cut the Clinton hike in half, and the high bracket threshold by a hundred grand, but they want more cuts -- while a war's going on for Pete's sake.

When we're talking about rolling back the Bush tax cuts, we're only talking about charging people making over $250,000/year an extra 4.6% of their additional income ABOVE that quarter of a million greenbacks. These GOPers want you to think that's highway robbery, and the Democrats have you believing that they're Robin Hood. Folks, it's a nickel extra on those extra dollars, that's all.

Yet According to Hillary, and all the Republicans (except Ron Paul, as usual) we're in some kind of existential struggle that rivals the threats we withstood from Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. But back then, when WWI started for us, we raised taxes on people making over TWO Million bucks a year from 15% to 67, eventually taxing mere Millionaires 77% by the war's end. Taxes on income above and beyond 100 grand were down to 24% by 1929, and we know how that worked out. FDR got us out of The Depression by taking 63% of income earned above a million dollars and raised it to 80% if you made over 5 million (and back in the Forties, $5 million was real money).

We paid for WWII, funded Social Security's upstart and created the GI Bill, which allowed the Greatest Generation to become the Greatest Parents by lowering the high bracket down to $200,000 and raising the rate to 91% -- which is admittedly ridiculous. The high bracket doubled to 400K by the time Everybody Liked Ike, who left the 91% rate alone. That's high folks. Really high. Especially for a Republican.

Happy Days!

Then came that great Tax and Spender, LBJ presided over drop in the rate to the mid 70%'s which Nixon dropped a couple more points. Between a depleted revenue stream and the cost of the Vietnam war coming due, no wonder Ford and Carter had such trouble with the economy, neither of whom touched the tax rates. That happens when you cut taxes during a war. The next administration inherits a cluster-phuque.

Reagan of course pulled the rug out from under the tax code, dropping the top rate to 50%, then to 38%, and 28% in his last year -- while RAISING the marginal rate by two points on the POOREST tax payers from 11% to 15%. Dickhead! but to the Grover Norquists of the world, he's a god for cutting the top rate by more than half. The mega rich hadn't had it so good since Hoover.

And yes, spending is just as big a problem as wingnut "wealthfare," but the ultimate sacred cow, the one thing they never, ever, ever even contemplate is cutting the military, the single biggest budget item of all, and they won't even consider doing anything but make it even bigger. The waste, fraud, corruption, no-bid, lost and unaccounted Billions the black-hole of the Pentagon has flushed down their ten thousand dollar toilets is beyond redemption.

Why aren't any of the Congressional GOP leaders or the GOP presidential candidates agreeing with Pat Buchanan (of all people) who ask why we still have so many thousands of service men and women in Europe 60 years after WWII and the Cold War a memory of another decade? Europe is bigger and more wealthy than us, and doesn't face a Soviet enemy any more. Why are we borrowing money from the Europeans to pay for their protection? WTF? We're deploying multi-Billion Dollar missile defense systems, deploying them as if they actually work. WTF? We got 30,000 soldiers guarding S.Korea, who certainly are well off enough to hire Blackwater if necessary, from a country half it's size, a fraction of it's worth, that is starving. WTF? Have our guys guard our own border, not theirs.

Ugly GOP Tooberz Debate

I just wanted to make a quick comment in the middle of watching the GOP presidential debates, and couldn't believe how much these guys simply hate each other -- except Tancredo who seems to be enjoying the circular firing squad from his quiet corner stage left.

And then, just when I thought it couldn't get any uglier, "ordinary citizen/U-Tuber" Grover (Drown Government in a Bathtub) Norquist is on the big screen -- six feet tall -- challenging each of these guys to pledge they wouldn't raise taxes. They all lied in response of course. Okay, I'm hooked into live blogging it.

Ugh. At least Anderson Cooper is (ineffectually) moderating instead of Beard Blitzer. But to be fair, there's no controlling Mitt and Rudy who must have turned off twice as many people as they attracted, by far.

Giuliani and Mitt shouted at each other and were both boo'd. Mitt yelled at Huckabee (you don't mess with a preacher dude, what's wrong with you), and were both boo'd -- what's up with that? McCain crossed the Godwin Line by implying Ron Paul was a Hitler enabler, and was boo'd -- and should have had rotten tomatoes thrown at him. Mitt got slapped by McCain, and was cheered. Fred Thompson looked like he needed a nap and sounded like he missed his meds.

Oh, and Duncan Hunter was there. I guess he singlehandedly built a 70 mile double fence (with a road through it) to keep the brown people out of San Diego, or something, and eliminated all crime and drugs and illegal lettuce pickers in Southern California -- from his apartment in the D.C. Suburbs. Take THAT Chuck Norris!

Speaking of Chuck Norris' candidate, Mike Huckabee. If he didn't win over the Christo-con faction of the GOP tonight, he never will. He absolutely NAILED a question on whether he believes the literal word of the Bible as true. Outstanding answer, best I've ever seen a candidate of any stripe handle that type of question.

Personally I don't care what they think of the bible as long as they understand some of it is interpretive rather than literal. But when Huck said he didn't understand all of it, and he isn't supposed to, then said the simple things (like the golden rule) are what we have to concentrate before we get into a debate over the hard stuff -- my jaw dropped. He just articulated the perfect response to that dumb question and every politician from any party ought to comit that answer to memory.

It was nearly impossible not to wonder just what any of these demagogues would do if Hillary isn't the nominee. She is the boogeyman of them all, especially Romney, Freddy and Rudy. My head nearly exploded when Romney answered a question about the federal debt and social security, saying what we needed is not to follow Hillary off a cliff to the left, but follow the "proper" course of Reagan.

Remember Reagan? You know, the guy who started the idea that "deficits don't matter" followed by Bush/Bush/Cheney, instead of Clintonomics which gave us the first surplus since Andrew Jackson. Reagan, the guy who made stealing from social security to pay for deficit spending a multi-trillion dollar free-for-all. Unbelievable.

What planet are these guys really from? Oh yeah, no wonder they want to go to Mars. Geez.

Note To Dana Peroxide

Get a clue.

Not to be redundant, but . . .

Tuesday: 2 US Soldiers, 46 Iraqis Killed; 35 Iraqis Wounded
Monday: 30 Iraqis Killed, 4 Wounded
Sunday: 1 U.S. Soldier, 37 Iraqis Killed; 64 Iraqis Wounded
Saturday: 32 Iraqis Killed, 40 Wounded
Friday: 1 U.S. Soldier, 61 Iraqis Killed; 104 Iraqis Wounded

Oh, and Allahpundit? Nice job, except it doesn't count if the reporter didn't use an IBM Selec^thric.

Church To Bar Ratio: Out of Whack

Tuesday: 2 US Soldiers, 46 Iraqis Killed; 35 Iraqis Wounded
Monday: 30 Iraqis Killed, 4 Wounded
Sunday: 1 U.S. Soldier, 37 Iraqis Killed; 64 Iraqis Wounded
Saturday: 32 Iraqis Killed, 40 Wounded
Friday: 1 U.S. Soldier, 61 Iraqis Killed; 104 Iraqis Wounded

This just doesn't seem right.

In surveying the number of churches on my daily commute taking my girls to their schools (about a 15 mile round-trip twice a day) we first noticed that some buildings that looked like bars or ordinary houses were actually churches. Including the one mosque (which was one of the places of worship that could have been mistaken for a cocktail lounge), two Catholic schools with attached churches, a monastery, a Christ's Scientists reading room, a couple of cemetery chapels and as many cathedral-like Gothic buildings as there were corner fly-by-night revival halls, we counted 35 places of worship.

The in-betweeners included a sobriety social club, the City Mission and a half-way house.

Along the same route, there were only 17 bars.

I didn't include places where you could get carry-out beer or wine, just sit down bars or restaurants where you could order a beer for your table.

So what gives? How can there be twice as many places of redemption for so few places to sin? Clearly this town needs more establishments dedicated to the highway to Hell and not the road less traveled. If the churches keep this up, they'll bankrupt the jail and prison industry.

And why are there more parking spots near the bars than the churches?

Okay, Digby's Right. Duh!

I've been resisting the "Village" epithet Digby, Atrios, TRex and The Carpetbagger have adopted to describe the press and beltway insiders that inhabit Washington D.C., preferring instead the idea of Versailles Courtiers dancing along the Potomac.

I've been disabused of this notion. There is little in the people that populate the Nation's Capital that can be confused with the term, "elegant."

Like many a political observer, until I read this, I thought of DC as being more like a European Court filled with jesters and courtiers and grey eminences advising in the shadows. But Versailles could never be this hypocritically provincial --- and proud of it. DC is America, through and through --- America, ca. 1690. The Reverend Broder sentences the heretics to the stake while Sally Goodwyfe runs around screaming "burn them, burn them!"

And yes, if you haven't already, take a look at Digby's argument and see if you agree.

Make no mistake, The Villagers dearly miss that kinder, gentler time when witches and wayward women knew their place or were drowned; and shooting, whipping and enslaving brown people was all the rage. Life is so much more complicated now.

Shorter Bush White House:

OK, the dirty hippies were right about everything.

[Cross-posted at E Pluribus Unum]

Did We Turn Another Corner Iraq?

Thursday: 66 Iraqis Killed, 36 Wounded
Wednesday: 1 US Soldier, 74 Iraqis Killed; 48 Iraqis Wounded
Tuesday: 2 British Soldiers, 71 Iraqis Killed; 33 Iraqis Wounded

That country must have more angles than a E₈ polytope.

US reports 'phenomenal' drop in Iraq violence — Violence in Iraq has fallen at a rate that has surprised military commanders and even one of the architects of the "surge" that boosted US troop numbers in the country this year …

-- via Memeorandum

Whatever, Heckuvajob, Rah Rah, . . . by my count there's been 331 casualties of this war in just the three days since my last update. That won't do, sorry.

Clap Louder!!!

This is a long struggle, and it's a struggle of ideas, of ideologies, extremism on one side, pragmatism or moderation on the other. It's about opportunities, it's about economics, it's about employment, it's about education.

Ya think, maybe, we could uhm . . . try improving our own economy and educational system a bit (hey, just a bit, that's all I'm asking) while we're turning Iraq into the neo-contopia we've always dreamed of? I mean, before we start building Disneyworld on the Euphrates, it would be nice to eliminate a couple of the problems we have here at home -- like the massive unemployment here in Ohio -- The Heart Of It All.

For instance, how about a realistic tax policy on those who can most afford to pay for this damn war of theirs instead of the voodoo nonsense we have now -- before we bankrupt our own country (or have we already).

For those with a weak sense of history and no economic instincts whatsoever, take my word for it -- there'd still be a Soviet Union if they hadn't bled themselves dry in Afghanistan. This lesson is being played out for the supply-side corporatists in the U.S. as we pour the wealth of the greatest nation on earth into the bottomless pit in Iraq.

Just stop it, okay. And don't even get your hopes up that you'll convince anyone like me that it was worth one red cent, let alone a drop of red American blood.

Happy Argue With The Family Weekend

Kinda busy making a Turducken. Don't blow up the world while I'm cooking.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Where Have I Heard This Before?

Monday: 2 GIs, 43 Iraqis Killed, 28 Wounded
Sunday: 4 U.S. Soldiers, 33 Iraqis Killed; 61 Iraqis Wounded

You know how you come across a sound you remember from a tune you always loved when you're screwing around with another song you recently learned, "jazzing" it up, playing with off-tempos or just transposing keys? It takes you to a completely different place, playing a whole new piece.

Okay, if you don't play you don't understand, or only think you do. But when I realized tonight that the opening from Peter Gabriel's Solsbury Hill, although completely different in every respect from the Doobie Brothers' Without Love -- are remarkably similar in their basic construction.

Who knew. But there I was, just picking away absent mindedly, and instead of the usual pattern my fingers memorized years ago, my guitar started emitting the Doobie's old standard instead of Gabriel's first solo hit.

What on earth does this have to do with the usual subject matter of this blog? Fair question, and forgive the extended metaphor, but the sleaze is erupting late in the primary season, and it sounds familiar. The melody is different, but the chord pattern is unmistakable.

Yeah, this is about the mudslinging and rumor mongering. What's not to love? We can safely assume that neither victimized campaign is behind the rumors since Bobby admitted he didn't get the story from either campaign. Knowing that Novak runs almost exclusively in GOP circles . . . well, you do the math.

Come on folks, if the Novakula rumor mongering doesn't smell similar to the Lee Atwater/Karl Rove style of pitting one Democratic contender against another, nothing will. I've always thought that the Canuck Letter was overrated in it's desired effect. I believe that the Republicans did indeed want to interfere in the Democratic primary with that bit of dirty dealing that put Ed Muskie on the ropes. But to give the Nixonites credit for "picking their opponent" goes too far. The alleged "Crying Speech" was a bit of gravy.

They wanted to damage Muskie, and implicate his rivals for the Democratic nomination. Who's to say that if Muskie withstood the storm he would have been painted less the dove than McGovern, or been any more effective. (Okay, anyone could have beaten McGovern's one-state electoral college showing.) The smear itself isn't what sticks -- or The Scream, or the Monkey Business -- but the campaign's reaction that becomes the story.

Yes, the conventional wisdom is that Barack displayed foolish bait-taking (or not), and Hillary (and FOX) capitalized on it -- but went down in the polls. This will all be eclipsed by next weekend's scandal and tomorrow's poll.

Before I go back and see just how bad I can mangle another one of my favorite tunes, let me just say that Barack is a jerk for falling for such an stupid trick -- overreact much? Hillary, this all speaks volumes about how much you are distrusted. As for Novak . . . Bob, buddy, quit accepting Drudge's calls. You guys are killing the rest of us. If you keep this up, it might take Blogtopia more than 72 hours to debunk your stupidity -- and the days are far too short between now and Hillary's coronation.

Of course, on behalf of Edwards supporters everywhere, Hillary, Bob, Barack . . . thanks.

***

Sorry, I forgot the obligatory Rudy is a tool, link. But so are the rest of the GOP field -- who look a lot more foolish than the Dems when it comes to the finger pointing stuff.

If anyone could run credibly as an Law and Order, former prosecutor, anti-terror "bitch" it's Fran Townsend, who now has much more free time. Rudy is a wuss beside her -- and from what I've seen, I think she'd run as a Democrat since her husband is one and Janet Reno was her BFF. Good Luck Fran. I hope you managed to get to the xerox machine before Cheney made it to his shredder. Can't wait for the book.

Flip This, Russert

by shep

Here you can watch one of the cranky white guys from CNN explaining how Hillary Clinton refused to give straight answers on driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants, Social Security and the release of presidential records in that now infamous Democratic debate.

Besides being completely full of it himself when Jack Cafferty calls it “baloney” that Clinton herself can’t release presidential records and asking what “fiscal responsibility” means, the greatest stupidity and moral crime committed by our entire idiot press corps about that debate has to be the one that Clinton “flip-flopped” on the driver’s license issue.

Here’s Russert’s original “gotcha” question:

Russert: Senator Clinton, Governor of New York Eliot Spitzer has proposed giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. He told the Nashua, New Hampshire, Editorial Board it makes a lot of sense.

Why does it make a lot of sense to give an illegal immigrant a driver's license?

And here’s Clinton’s answer as to why it makes sense:

Clinton: Well, what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform. We know in New York we have several million at any one time who are in New York illegally. They are undocumented workers. They are driving on our roads. The possibility of them having an accident that harms themselves or others is just a matter of the odds. It's probability.

So what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is to fill the vacuum. I believe we need to get back to comprehensive immigration reform because no state, no matter how well intentioned, can fill this gap. There needs to be federal action on immigration reform.

And here’s Russert’s flip-flop:

Russert: Does anyone here believe an illegal immigrant should not have a driver's license?

(Unknown): Believe what?

Russert: An illegal immigrant should not have a driver's license.

Now Russert’s question isn’t why Spitzer’s plan “makes sense,” it is now, one Clinton answer later, who thinks illegal immigrants should not be given a driver’s license.

So Chris Dodd answers that question in the negative and Clinton attempts to answer the new question thusly:

Clinton: Well, I just want to add, I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do...

Edwards then opportunistically claims that Clinton said two different things – which she did in response to Russert’s two different questions – and the rest is beltway journalistic malpractice.

(The gotcha nature of the original question is obvious to anyone who’s ever taken a first-year philosophy class: “tell me why it might make sense to kill a criminal” or “write an essay on why it might make sense to start a war with a militarily inferior, resource-rich country.” And Punkin' Head is apparently somewhat ashamed of it since he edited it out of this week’s MTP review of Clinton’s “straight answer(s)” to two different questions).

The Village lurves its empty political narratives – i.e., “the calculating politician” (no, seriously) – because 1) college students who choose journalism aren’t usually the brightest crayons in the box and 2) our beltway press are really a bunch of lazy, pampered know-nothings who, if they couldn’t constantly lean on these mindless narratives, would actually have think of something clever to say or report, you know, the news (as our idiot-in-chief might say: that journalism stuff is hard work). Most maddeningly, they continue to pretend that they themselves aren’t affecting and corrupting the process by creating these narratives and with their laziness, inanity and adolescent-style assaults on politicians, particularly Democrats.

[Cross-posted at E Pluribus Unum]

Fran Townsend Resignation and the Unconnected Dots

Surprised? Steve Clemons was unprepared for the news that Fran Townsend, Bush's Counterterrorism and Homeland Security Adviser, no longer has an office in the White House. I don't think she left to take the job as Karl Rove's ghost writer at Newsweek.

We remember the edict from Chief of Staff Josh Bolton that anyone in the White House past Labor Day was in for the duration. Townsend didn't make it from Labor Day to Thanksgiving. Something's up. She serves at the pleasure of POTUS, and evidently, he was no longer pleased. With Karen Hughes leaving, this is the second unexpected resignation in as many months.

Here's your Speculation Points Memo:

Townsend has been on several "short lists" to replace high profile Administration staffers, including consideration as Homeland Security Director when Bernie Kerik discovered he had "nanny problems," and more recently as someone who could step into the Attorney General slot left vacant by Gonzales.

Her star has been on the rise right along, just having been put in charge of the Continuity of Government program last May. Her job did not even exist before "National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51” and “Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20."

The document designates a National Continuity Coordinator, who would be the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.

That would be Fran, until this morning anyway.

When/if the shit hits the fan, Townsend's replacement will be the most powerful person on the planet -- cuz the PrezNitWit will be looking to the Continuity Coordinator to tell him how to "legally" declare himself President in Perpetuity.

The Kerik/Giuliani Connection? She knew Bernie Kerik best when he was up for the Homeland security gig, but wasn't consulted since she was up for the same job. She was a Brooklyn prosecutor and then moved to the US Attorney's office to put mobsters in jail and busting international crime syndicates under (who else) Rudy Giuliani. Guess which indicted former NYC Police Commissioner was assigned to the US Justice Department's New York Drug Enforcement Task Force during that time-period -- after he was fired as a security investigator for the Saudi Royals. Yeah, that Bernie Kerik.

They've met.

It seems, that she's been fighting the FISA battles since her friend Janet Reno was Attorney General, leaving the Justice Department in 2000 when she was thwarted in her effort to let the counterterrorist folks share the info they got from wiretapping with the criminal divisions -- willing to follow procedures that set up "the wall" but pushing it to its limits. At this point, I could only guess which side she is on in the current FISA debate, but nobody knows the ins-and-outs better. Reno put her in charge of the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review in 1998 -- the only gatekeeper the FBI and other agencies had before applying to the secret FISA Court to obtain warrants.

There are skeletons buried out there, and Fran Townsend knows where they are.

I'm most intrigued about her current position as Catastrophe Czarina. She had 90 days after her appointment on May 9th to come up with the Continuity of Government plan, which pretty much ignores the fact that a legislative or judicial branch exist, making the President alone responsible for "lead[ing] the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government."

Presumably, that document is now complete and is making the rounds inside the Administration along with the National Intelligence Estimate that the Vice President couldn't cook.

Got your tin-foil Freak-Out hat firmly in place? Check this out.

"This directive [for the Continuity of Government plan] shall be implanted in a manner that is consistent with, and facilitates effective implementation of, provisions of the Constitution concerning succession to the Presidency or the exercise of its powers, and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 USC 19), with the consultation of the Vice President and, as appropriate, others involved."

The document also contains "classified Continuity Annexes."

I don't think it was Bush who is no longer pleased with this lady who seems to have a firm grasp of what is and is not appropriate executive prerogatives as well as knowing all too much about surveillance of foreign terrorists.

She pissed off Dick.

It's that, or Hughes and Townsend said something nice about Hillary Clinton, which would have the same effect.

Okay, I'm Scared

"Chuck Norris doesn't endorse - he tells America how it's gonna be."

KOS: Oh HELL Yeah!

MarKOS goes after the BushBots in Newsweek's Print edition.

Susan G. informed me in my KOS-posted piece on Rove below that MarKOS' first article for Newsweek was online only. In the print version, a completely new article, he does exactly what I wanted to see from him.

My faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster has been restored!

Thanks for the Birthday present MarKOS.

Rove: Rhymes With Spoofiness

Saturday: 68 Iraqis Killed, 8 Wounded

KOS-Posted

Okay, duly noted that MarKOS devoted his first Newsweek column (online only -- a new print edition column is here) to a truly nobel cause -- ending the war, and although critical of Democrats, he didn't blast them to pieces, and neither did he assail those responsible for us being there in the first place . . .

Speaking of Karl Rove . . .

You can tell these two aren't trading shots, yet. Rove, true to his role as a political hack and not a policy wonk, dedicates his precious space on the pages of one of America's most widely read publications to beating The Bitch Hillary.

Mind you, his article is nominally addressed to Republicans, taking the position that her nomination is a foregone conclusion. Its timing, during the heat of the primaries instead of next summer, is so obviously suspect it's almost textbook Rovellian misdirection.

His advice is to the people actually, you know, running against her . . . like right now, and he cuts their legs out from under them with kindness.

"How To Beat Hillary." Ahh, the master's voice! Speak your wisdom to all of us NotHillary supporters out here in the hinterland, Oh fair (sorta, what's left of it) haired GeenYuss!

What is telling is that he takes a GOP meme, and tries to reinforce it as conventional wisdom. He's been doing that forever, and it's proof that he isn't talking to any nominal GOP nominee, or even a NotHillary candidate -- but framing the debate to deflate the public's dominate preference for Democrats and their relative approval of the Democratic Party's position on every issue out there. He's attacking our strength, as usual.

Every presidential election is about change and the future, not the past. So show them who you are in a way that gives the American people hope, optimism and insight. That's the best antidote to the low approval rates of the Republican president. Those numbers will not help the GOP candidate, just as the even lower approval ratings of the Congress will not help the Democratic standard-bearer.

This is fiction.

Disapproval of Congress DOES NOT translate into disapproval of Democrats. Frustration with Congressional gridlock preventing the advancement of the Democratic Party's agenda does not mean people are sick of the Democratic leadership, even though we are most vocal with our criticism. We completely understand that the best hope for this nation, and the world, is a Democratic White House as well as Congress and that what's left of the conservative movement that isn't retiring or indicted will be gone next year.

We aren't stupid Karl, unlike the dry-drunk pre-schooler you've been tutoring for the last couple of decades. As I mentioned earlier today, "the reason Congress's approval ratings are so low is a direct result of Republican obstructionism -- not because the public at large disapproves of Democrats in general." Polling data -- The Math -- bears this out.

Of course, if this were what he would whisper into a candidate's ear, the world might be a better place. He knows his audience - and it's not anyone associated with the Republican Party. He also knows that any discrete missive he would send to Fredrudolf McCromney would be read, twice, and not forwarded to the circular file. No, this stuff is fluff for you, America. Because nothing is so laughable coming from The Architect than this . . .

Say in authentic terms what you believe.

Phhthhwwtttdd!

My dog just gave me that look. You know, the one where she says I've been sitting at the computer too long -- and I need a napkin.

First of all, this is that LAST thing Rove would really tell any candidate. Second, "authentic?" He's kidding, right? Has he checked out the current crop of probable GOP nominees?

Okay, maybe Huckabee is naive enough to go the "Truthiness" route, and we all know that Ron Paul is nutty enough to. But Floppy Flippiani (flipped on guns, abortion, immigration, civil unions), or Flop FlipCain (I Heart-Bush/torture/Baptists/Episcopalians), and Flip Flopney (Pro-choice/life, Pro-universal/not-so-much health-care, Pro-Mormon/Evangelicals Pro/anti-gay rights, pro/anti-tax cuts. pro/anti-campaign finance reform, pro/anti-Ronald Reagan)?

Are you Flipping for real Karl?

Is this intended for that dude from Law and Order, acting directions along with a script? You are aware there a strike on and Mr. Thompson isn't allowed to cross a picket line without jeopardizing his support among hard-hat wearin' "Reel 'Mericans," right? Don't be a scab, Karl. Not for your first Newsweek article. Bad form. Better to plagerize right from The Prince, instead.

If Rove isn't simply phoning this in, but is in any way sincere, actually thinking that any one of those GOP contenders are remotely capable of "authenticity," I'll register as a Republican next year and donate a hundred bucks to the RNC.

As for the meat of his "advice" though, I must say that the the overall slant of Rove's suggestions are pure calculated crap, the kind of crap that got his former boss elected -- superficial, inane and driven by the trite personality politics where issues and policy don't matter. He all but abdicates any hope that the Republicans can or will offer anything of substance to rival the Democratic Party's agenda of universal health care, an end to the war, a re-dedication to diplomatic initiatives, a responsible immigration policy, an end to crony capitalism -- and figuring out a way to pay for all of it without bankrupting the next five generations.

Rove tells this fictional Republican candidate to exude something none of them have -- hope. The only hope they have is to run the same old playbook against the Democrat they hate/fear/know the most, Hillary.

And Rove knows that no respectable Democratic challenger can get away with criticizing her by adopting a Right Wing framing -- which is why he throws the kitchen sink at her. The laundry list includes her high negatives, HillaryCare, Bill's shadow, too liberal, too calculated, too vain, too smart, too tough, too female, too ambitious, and too inevitable. These are now all subjects that are taboo for Edwards, Obama, or anyone else seeking to delay her coronation.

Well played Mr. Rove.

MUCK

FICHIGAN

More Later.

In the mean time, Next time someone tells you how much the Democrats are sucking because they haven't stopped the war (Yes KOS, you too), remind them that the reason Congress's approval ratings are so low is a direct result of Republican obstructionism -- not because the public at large disapproves of Democrats in general.

Don't take my word for it. Just take a look at the facts -- which always have a liberal bias.

Ending the war, something the majority of people wanted according to the 2006 exit polls, is still what we want. And by we, I mean the majority of ALL of America, not just the left -- who are nearly unanimous in this desire.

Only about one-third of Americans say the recent U.S. troop surge is making the situation in Iraq better, and the majority of Americans continue to say it was a mistake to send troops there in the first place. Although Americans are pessimistic about progress in the war, a slim majority still believe the United States is likely to win -- a slight improvement since mid-January, but similar to measures in early January and in 2006.

Last year, 58% of us disapproved of Bush's handling of the war. This last spring, almost as many, 57%, thought he was being pigheaded when he vetoed the spending measure that included optional timetables, and even more would approve of insisting on benchmarks - 61%.

And what happened as a result of Bush insisting on thwarting the considered wisdom of the people he (in theory) represents? Casualty counts have exceeded last year with two months to go, and zero political movement by the Iraqi government which the improved security situation in Baghdad was supposed to encourage. They aren't even trying to "stand up so we can stand down."

Sorry, it's long past time to bail. No one should be able to say we didn't give it a shot. I've been saying we should find an excuse, any excuse to leave long before the country was ready to walk away from this disaster. Now, it's the only choice left. There are no more deck chairs to rearrange.

Now I know Congress overall is in trouble, and Congressional Democrats have nothing to crow about when it comes to how endeared the public is to them. But they are still 9 points higher than their Republican counterparts.

By a 2 to 1 margin, those who see little accomplishment in Congress's first nine months blame the inaction on Bush and the GOP more than they do the majority Democrats. Fifty-one percent place primary fault with the president and congressional Republicans, and 25 percent on the Democrats. Among independents, 43 percent blame Republicans, 23 percent Democrats and nearly three in 10 blame both sides equally.

Now in case you're still confused, and are some kind of struggling winger trying to find yourself (you know who you are), understand that no amount of spin can turn America's desire to end the war as some kind of "Lefty Policy" when only 13% to 27% of the people want Bush to have a blank check to pour more lives and cash into the sandbox.

The Democrats are bringing the right bills to the floor. The Republicans and Bush are the one getting everybody killed.

Mmmm, Bar-B-Que Sauce!

Friday: 1 U.S. Soldier 18 Iraqis Killed, 24 Wounded

Now that MarKOS has joined the Corporate Media Elite, let's see if he can get beyond his first foray into the den of the beast represented by his first Newsweek column which harmlessly enough charts the Reid/Pelosi leadership of Congress on funding the Iraq occupation.

Truly, if ever a softball was served up to Karl Rove, the "counter" to MarKOS's "point," this is it. Given the chance to shape what promises to be an interesting debate between two people who couldn't be more different in their outlook, experience and influence, Moutalis (Moulitsas, sorry dude) had the first chance to set the stage by pointing to just one of so many of the Bush Administration's transgressions -- putting Rove on the defensive from the start.

Whether this was by edict of the Great Orange Satan's editors, or his own choice is academic. You've got a clear target, a pocket full of ammo, and instead of going after the corporate kleptocracy that spawned George W. Bush -- MarKOS opts to go after the Democrats instead.

Correct me if I'm just out in left field here, but I didn't detect one single criticism of the GOP in anything MarKOS wrote.

Great work from a guy who founded the largest blog on the planet, one dedicated to advancing Democrats over Republicans and championing progressive causes. Let us know how the cocktail weenies taste on the other side Markos. Those of us who can only glimpse Versailles on the Potomac from the outside are dieing to get the recipe.

Krugman

Court Jester of Versailles.

But Social Security isn’t a big problem that demands a solution; it’s a small problem, way down the list of major issues facing America, that has nonetheless become an obsession of Beltway insiders. And on Social Security, as on many other issues, what Washington means by bipartisanship is mainly that everyone should come together to give conservatives what they want.

We all wish that American politics weren’t so bitter and partisan. But if you try to find common ground where none exists — which is the case for many issues today — you end up being played for a fool. And that’s what has just happened to Mr. Obama.

Paul, please leave your key to the executive washroom with the front desk on your way out. Higher Broderism will not tolerate this level of truthiness.

Debating the Value of These Debates

I caught only bits and pieces of the debate live as it unfolded, pretty much missing the last half entirely. I got a chance to read some of the 'sphere's reaction to what happened before I sat down to watch the repeat.

I got the impression that all the fireworks came out in the first half anyway -- and I have a theory as to why.

Two Words: Wolf Blitzer.

No, he's no Tim Russert (thank god) but if you look at the questions he went to at the top of the debate, as opposed to the audience generated questions (that I'm still waiting for as of this writing), Blitzer was setting up the fight.

In essence, he says, "Hey Hillary, they've been coming at you for a week or two -- take your best shot girfriend." Then Wolf looks to Obama, "Barack, dude. Are you gonna take that crap from a girl?" "Senator Edwards, can you summarize why Hillary sucks in less that 90 seconds? . . . Go!"

I don't know how to fix these things, honestly. I'm really committed to watching, learning, interpreting and sharing my thoughts on these events. I'm convinced that the Democratic Primary process will select the next president -- even if Lou Dobbs decides to run. (Cuz there just aren't enough conservative nutjobs out there running as it is.)

But honestly, I'm zoning out. I have no idea why Joe Biden isn't immensely more popular. I have no idea why Chris Dodd is even in the race, what he brings to the table. I had no idea Campbell Brown moved to CNN. I have no idea why Richardson is so damn honest -- cuz if he'd learn to say what everyone wants to hear instead of the truth all the time, he might have a chance. I have no idea why the question America wants to ask Dennis Kucinich was blown off -- "What did you really see in the Arizona sky, and how much peyote had you eaten that day?"

Are the debates that important, or who even wins the post debate spin war and week long pundit analysis afterwards? I think a promising career in politics can end in one of these things, but does winning really matter? I have my doubts. You can "lose," trip up and be buried, but I don't know if you gain ground by winning as much as capitalize on someone else faltering.

Oh, and Obama, dude. Don't do any more of these things. You suck at it almost as much as Richardson.

UPDATE: Seems like I missed the good part of the debate, the part that mattered -- where the candidates answer real questions, fully, from real people. Young Yglesias nails it. The Versailles Press simply must be neutered.

UPDATE TWO: Yes, really. Lou Dobbs. And . . . Yes, I missed that one. The Ghost of Ross Perot and his charts really didn't need to be resurrected.

Your NotHillary Candidate Headlines

Since we are assured that Hillary would win in a landslide if the election were tomorrow, none of the following matters.

Not Hillary (and Not Gore) nominated for Nobel Peace Prize

Nashua (NH) Telegraph OpEd: “Not Hillary Is The Most Qualified Democrat In The Field”

Not Hillary's camp launches 'Plants for Hillary' Web site

UAW throws support to Not Hillary.

Not Hillary to walk picket line

Memo to Not Hillaries: There Is No Social Security Crisis

Not Hillary: 'I'm a Long Shot'

With all this in mind, please remember that Nothing is Inevitable.

The World Is Bent

Thursday: 1 US Soldier, 12 Iraqis Killed; 36 Iraqis Wounded

According to This Recommended Diary by our buddy Ara, Newsweek felt that the only conservative out there who could possibly balance out KOS as a regular columnist is . . . Karl (Frickin') Rove.

Huntley and Brinkley meet Oscar and Felix.

More Juice, Less Pulp

It would have almost been worth it to see the charges against O.J. dropped just so we could get back to more important "news," like Rhymes With Lacy Peterson, or who Donnie and Marie think we should elect.

What we will never get enough information on is the Android Wars or the imminent invasion of the Monkey Clones!

(H.T. Oliver, who will be really upset when this mug is all over Teh TeeVee doing color commentary on Hillary's Impeachment Trial in about 2015.)

The wit and wisdom of Lizzy Adams

Two things that are not appropriate names for your kids

Orangello [pronounced: Oh-RON--JelO]
Lemongello [pronounced: Lay-MON--JelO]

Questionable food substances of unknown origin are confusing enough to their teenage friends without having to avoid ordering them at the cafeteria.

Also, Toprameneesha is really just the female version of Japanese noodles -- likewise just plain silly.

Bumper Stickers for a new Millennium

Wednesday: 1 US Soldier, 53 Iraqis Killed; 27 Iraqis Wounded

Vote Robot Overlord. They'll Rust When You Waterboard Them!



(Hat Tip Rook's)

Dear Spineless Democrats

by shep

Listen very carefully to what this woman is saying.

Or get punked by Lou Dobbs and Pat Buchanan, I’m not really sure I give a shit anymore.

[Cross-posted at E Pluribus Unum]

A Bridge Too Far

Tuesday: 4 U.S. soldiers, 62 Iraqis Killed; 43 Iraqis Wounded

“While I believe in the right to free speech, to me that doesn’t give anyone the right to criticize one’s leader at a foreign venue in a totally nonpolitical event.”

-- Some Holier Than Thou, Big-Wig Bridge Player

Actually Dude, that's exactly what it means.

PolitiCo-rrAP

Monday: 36 Iraqis Killed, 17 Wounded

Jim VandeHei and John F. Harris penned a conventional wisdom piece at Politico: Democrats zero for 40 on Iraq. Something stood out for me in this otherwise space-filling poll-driven article (for which I have no idea why it would take two people to write).

As such articles are usually wont, it offers little but to document the Democratic majority's failure to stop a war they never said they would be able to stop (despite the authors' conviction that this was indeed what was promised) and note Congressional low approval ratings, while subtly inching up the ratings for "C+ Augustus" over the 30% mark instead of the 20's where he's been all year -- ignoring Bush's Nixonian numbers in disapproval and suggesting that in the near-term this could spell trouble at the polls for the Dems.

Now I don't know about you, but I find it interesting that these two guys can read minds -- and do it badly.

But what the year has mostly highlighted is that Democrats and anti-war activists were in the grip of two illusions after their triumph in the 2006 elections.

The first illusion is that taking power on Capitol Hill was by its very nature — no matter the precise legislation that emerged — something that would alter the basic dynamics of Iraq policy.

Please point me to a speech, or even a sound-byte where a prominent Democratic candidate promised to end the war this year, or even force a draw-down -- or even . . . "alter the basic dynamics of Iraq," whatever that means.

VandeHei and Harris make note that the situation on the ground pushes the policy more than any other factor -- yet imply that this is suddenly revealed wisdom and not something we've been hearing from Republicans and Democrats alike, ad nauseum, for several years now.

Their next strawman is "[t]he second illusion is that Democrats could stall substantively and still prosper politically."

Now they make mention that overall Congress' approval is down, and it's not just Democrats. "Disapproval of the Democratic majority in Congress has risen steadily, albeit with no corresponding increase in enthusiasm for Republicans." So how they make the leap that this should only worry Democratic incumbents is mystifying, especially in light of the vacant seats the GOP are leaving as members announce plans for early retirement.

However, the quote which reminded my hind-brain of something alarming is this:

A few months ago, many lawmakers were saying something like this: “It’s true we can’t force Bush’s hand on Iraq because we do not have veto-proof majorities. But the longer he sticks with an unpopular war, the better it will be for Democrats, and eventually the moderates and war skeptics in the GOP will stage a full revolt.”

Now we're supposedly opting to support a fifth column inside conservative America? Wouldn't it be better to get them to join us instead of standing by while they create a movement of their own. Who? Who the hell was saying this? Gimme a break.

Isn't this exactly the kind of strategy that lost us Cuba? Wasn't the containment theory of engagement with Iraq insufficient to topple Saddam's regime from within? Are we to wait out the conservatives again -- who will try to come back even if it takes another 30 years -- just as we out-spent and out-waited the old Soviet regime; only to see it's transformation into a moderately reasonable democratic partner be abandoned in favor of the standard strong-man rule that has predominated east of the Urals for centuries?

Is anyone suggesting this is the way we should handle Pakistan?

I worry that mere containment of the neocons is enough. I don't think it ever will be. Before we can just start "getting along" with our wingnut cousins for the good of us all, their ideology must be completely repudiated and exiled to the dust heap of failed theories of government along with monarchism, feudalism, communism, and fascism.

They've done so much damage in such a relatively short time, we can never afford to let them be in charge of anything again.

Novak: Shameless Hack, Still

During a confusing week on Capitol Hill, lawmakers engaged in games that were difficult for insiders to understand and incomprehensible to ordinary voters.

-- Novakula

The patronizing mindset it requires to write that sentence exposes so much about the Versailles Press in Washington. I get it Bob. You're smart and wired into the people who matter, while the rest of us hicks are just too dumb to understand.

Please, please Bobby, edu-ma-cate us ignorant slobs. (What a prick.)

So he goes out of his way to perpetuate the Republican's favorite myth about irresponsible tax-and-spend Democrats trying to pull a fast one by loading up an appropriations bill for Vets with a bunch of earmarks. But where was this criticism of pork laden spending bills when the GOP was in charge?

Novak made special mention that "Citizens Against Government Waste found 2,274 earmarks worth $1 billion in the bill," as an example of the greedy Democrats loading up this important legislation with expensive pet projects -- so he could "prove" Democratic Party mismanagement.

[BTW, Citizens Against Government Waste, as you might have guessed, is part of a Right-Wing think tank/lobby outfit whose clients include Microsoft and big tobacco, funded in part by the Tobacco Institute, Phillip Morris, RJR Nabisco, Merrill Lynch, and everybody's favorite corporation, Exxon. None other than nutball Alan Keyes was it's president from '89 to '91, and it's founder J. Peter Grace, a former member of the Council on Foreign Relations and a Reaganista involved in the Iran-Contra scandal had some very nefarious doings with former Nazi War Criminals.]

Yet even according to Novak's source for the out-of-control spending by the Democratic Congress, the 2005 "Pig Book" says that the GOP was responsible for a "record 13,997 projects" at a cost of $27.3 Billion. That dropped in 2006 (an election year where waste and corruption were top issues, go figure) to 9,963 -- yet the cost went up to $29 Billion.

And what's the total on earmarked pork this year? Noting that only two of the eleven appropriations bills have passed, and that there is a "moratorium on earmarks" for the other nine -- Congress has passed 2,658 for a cost of only $13.2 Billion.

Novak makes no mention of what a decrease in earmarking this was from the GOP's recent trip to the taxpayer trough -- "by 2005 the earmarks had multiplied to 6,371, or nearly 10% of total spending," in just the Highway Bill to Nowhere alone. He doesn't want us bothered by petty details like the almost 55% decrease in pork barrel spending in actual dollars from last year, or the 80% drop in individual earmarks reflected in this year's legislation compared to the last non election year.

Oh, I get it Uncle Bob. You're right, us ordinary folks out here in the hinter-land would never have made the connection that the Democrats are still horribly wasteful without you pointing it out to us with your misleading numbers and arbitrary standards. I forgot that Democrats=waste, Republicans=fiscal responsibility. I couldn't understand your enlightened wisdom without seeing it through your stupidity prism.

Thanks. I'm glad you cleared that up for us.

Union Busting For Fun And Profit

"The best anti-poverty strategy is a strong labor movement."

-- John Edwards

Digby (who else):

It has become conventional wisdom among many, having been led by a media with a dog in the fight, that unions are bad for America. As I noted in a recent post, you have people like Jim Cramer going on TV screaming and spitting at the top of his lungs, "they have to break that union, they have to break that union!" (about the UAW) and it's not countered with ... anything.

This makes sense for the plutocrats like Cramer and Chris Matthews but for the rest of us, not so much, even if we aren't in unions. Paul Krugman makes a persuasive argument in "Conscience of a Liberal" that the decades long conservative assault on the union movement has been a major contributor to the income inequality we are seeing today. Unions are essential to maintaining a thriving middle class and a thriving middle class is essential for a stable and decent society.

I remember when I saw Kramer go off on the UAW a couple of weeks ago, acting quite the madman (his usual persona), my mouth just hung open. I mean, I know these guys really feel that way, but I never heard anyone come right out and say it -- especially with such enthusiasm.

Workers, their families, the hell with the entire middle class if it fattens his portfolio.

He spewed some nonsense about how well Caterpillar, Inc. did when it engaged in some union busting of it's own. The guy was positively jubilant over the prospect of buying Chrysler at a bargain and watching it's stock price increase if it could only eliminate benefits and fair pay demanded by those damn unions. He'd be rich(er) if we could only go back to the good old days of slave wages throughout the land.

Watching this guy is like a window into the Id of Corporatism. An almost sexual release at the mere prospect making one dollar more for doing not one damn thing. If Tweedy hadn't been sitting and giggling next to him, I would have sworn I was watching Fox.

What Kinda Heckuvajob Is Going On Here?

Sunday: 19 Iraqis Killed, 21 Wounded

Fuel Oil is a nasty, icky substance, but since when did it become radioactive.

And since when do we arrest people trying to CLEAN the environment?

BTW, Loyalty Oaths? I thought those were just for attending one of Bush's speeches. When did this country get taken over by the thought police -- and why do they work at Fish & Game?

Just When I Was Warming Up To John Cole

Since he had his epiphany and disavowed the Republicans, John Cole's work at Balloon Juice has been inspired. Kind of like the righteous indignation you see in a former smoker when s/he sees you light up.

But I guess, even though you can take the boy away from the Dickheads -- you can't take the Dickhead out of the boy.

Why The Democrats Lost The White House in '08

You can blame the media for taking down Hillary, or other candidates who insist on actually campaigning against her as if she were, you know, their opponent.

Hell, blame Joe Lieberman if you want. Or us fucking malcontents on the Intertoobz. By all means, never forgive John Edwards for criticizing her majesty before her coronation.

Bottom line, you should blame Hillary Clinton herself if she gets nominated and yet, after the amazing criminality of the Republicans under Bush she still doesn't win. She's well aware that half of America won't vote for her no matter what, even if it's a vast right-wing conspiracy that made us that way. She doesn't care. She's had her eye on returning to Pennsylvania Avenue since the day her hubby got reelected in '96 -- don't kid yourself.

The Senate was a stepping stone, we all know that. She never lived a day in New York before the Clintons left the White House. And she's used her seat as a platform to triangulate the path of pissing the least number of people off throughout her tenure as a Senator,

One need only look at her bifurcated stance on flag burning to see her duplicity -- against a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit it, but for a statute that prevents burning the flag -- knowing it's unconstitutional without that Amendment she voted against. And that was two years ago.

She is Queen of the, "They think we're stupid" Courtiers who live in the Village I like to call Versailles on the Potomac. And by far the most ambitious of the lot. She thinks she knows what we want to hear, but she never tells us what we need to know.

And you know what, Gore did it too.

Yes, Saint Al of Oslo wasn't the eco-warrior of today, he didn't do battle and fight for our rights and speak truth to power or rail against the utter wrongness of the political right. That guy didn't appear until well after the war in Iraq had already started to go to hell, about three years too late.

Where was that guy when we needed him? Where is he now?

Next year it should be easy to get a Democrat elected President. It will be a really hard fight to get someone who is GOP Lite, like Mrs. Clinton. I don't think that's who she is, but that's who she's trying to look like.

And in politics, perception IS reality -- just ask the guys making their own reality behind the curtain obscuring what really goes on in the Oval Office.

Oh, and if you think I'm just playing into the Republicans' hands, giving them ammunition, think again. They've made an industry out of Clinton bashing, gotten downright rich on hating everything about Slick Willy and Slippery Hill.

They don't need my help. The fact that the Clintons are still in the pubic eye is all the ammunition they need.

Avedon's Sideshow: Indespensible

Saturday: 1 US Soldier, 58 Iraqis Killed; 35 Iraqis Wounded

What Digby is to long form analysis (read: Righteous Rants), Avedon Carol mixes the links we like with the insight we need.

Maybe it's the perspective from blogging across the pond, maybe it's the continued quest for the perfect bra.

Whatever it is (besides the fact that she occasionally tips her hat my way), Avedon is the BOMB. She's not number two after Digby in my heart. She's first in her own category, all her own.

I think it's a spin off the old Limbaugh saw where he tells his Ditto-heads what the news is, to think about it. Avedon tells me what to read, and why it matters. Digby tells me why I should be pissed off about it.

It occurs that I may sound sexist or worse, patronizing because I've singled out two female bloggers as my fav's. It also occurs that they were, by far, my "Go To" bloggers -- every day -- for over a year before I had a clue they weren't dudes. Truth is, it never occured.

(And yes, I thought Avedon was just being a male chauvinist pig for the Bra Of The Week thing in a cheap effort to attract viewers. I viewed, but never questioned for the longest time -- didn't think to click on the thing for the longest time.)

[And just as an aside -- do we have to give Skippy credit every damn time we write "Blogtopia?" Just wondering. I'm also wondering if Avedon will ever model any of those fantastic bras.]

They Don’t Understand Psychology Either

by shep

John Rogers:

This is where I'm always amused at libertarians, because they so love markets but never seem to understand how business actually works. If you, my fine libertarian friend, decide to forego the union and negotiate your own contract vis a vis residuals (or pretty much anything else), you will find that unless you are one of the maybe eight out of 12,0000 most famous and profitable writers in Hollywood, you will get exactly the same deal from each studio, or slightly worse. Because what possible motivation would they have to share their profits, relative to each of the other five competitors? That's just common sense.

Rogers is obviously talking about the writers’ strike – cruise the whole blog if you want a great writer’s perspective on the issues.

But he also make a great point about Iibertarian “free-market” types: they have no idea how the marketplace really works, suffering mainly from the delusion that the market is always a force for competition and good (Microsoft, Enron and Halliburton, they never explain). Rogers uses a great Chris Rock joke as a metaphor for the amoral, predatory nature of business:

One of my favorite jokes, just a lovely piece of writing, is Chris Rock's bit about the time one of Siegfried and Roy's tigers mauled Roy.

"Everybody's mad at the tiger. 'That tiger went crazy!' That tiger didn't go crazy ... that tiger went tiger."

This is how I feel about corporations in general, extended to the Studios in particular. There are those who rail at the AMPTP for being profit-maximizing heartless, soul-less bastards as if that were a bad thing. It's not.

A corporation's job is to make money, and if necessary fuck you in the process. Just like a tiger's job is to eat, and if necessary kill you in the process. I'm okay with that. I like capitalism. A lot. I like tigers. A lot. That doesn't mean I trust corporations not to try to screw me and everyone next to me when negotiating. Nor would I trust a tiger not to attack me in the wild. Nor am I personally offended when they try.

Exactly. It’s just business. But that is why you need regulatory government and institutions like unions to make it a fair fight. You alone, against the tiger, will soon be jungle fertilizer, ten times out of ten.

And the problem stretches the tiger analogy when you look at the other worst consequence of unregulated “free-markets”: pretty soon the biggest, baddest, most ruthless tigers start eating their own until there are only a few left that can survive (see Microsoft, Enron and Halliburton). In other words, competition – the supposed source of predictably “good” market outcomes - gets gobbled up by the market itself if left to its own amoral, greed and power-based nature.

You’d think that these facts would be self-evident, looking at what has actually transpired in marketplaces and societies throughout history, relative to the strength of existing trade unions and other worker and consumer-based institutions and (very occasionally) liberal, democratic government. But that’s reality-based thinking and, I’m sure, not nearly as satisfying as a simplistic, comforting worldview about business, government and human nature gleaned from a work of bad fiction.

[Cross-posted at E Pluribus Unum]

A Shit Sandwich

Friday Update: 42 45 Iraqis Killed, 29 33 Wounded

Sometimes you take a big bite, sometimes you take a little bite . . . sometimes you miss the bread entirely.

If this is the sort of competence that we get from Democratic campaigns then I refuse to expect much from the next administration. In a different time I would be weighing my options, but as long as the present management hangs on you would have to waterboard me to vote Republican. A shit sandwich looks quite edible when the alternative is a drano enema.

--Balloon Juice's Tim F.

To save you the trouble, the first link is the silly Hillary not tipping non-story that interests me about as much as cleaning up my back yard after the puppies get done. The second is Obama's failure to reject the Versailles Courtiers' framing of projected Social Security underfunding as some sort of crisis -- also about as interesting as drying paint.

While indicative of something or other, and a fine piece of literary allusion -- Geez Tim, overreact much?

But thanks for reminding me of that old joke about life being like a shit sandwich.

Far more interesting, at least from the point of view of anyone struggling to figure out what's really going on in the Potomac Village, is the strategery behind Harry Reid making legislative sausage -- a gesture to us liberals (and everybody else that isn't marching to PrezNitWit 24%'s tune) that is almost certain to fail to do what's advertised (stopping the war); in exchange for letting Mukasey slip through and probably selling us out to the Telecos.

To my way of seeing things, a shit sandwich consists of a Bush enabling, entrenched incumbent senator who probably has no interest in continuing in office after their 70th or 80th birthdays in 2012 -- their next opportunity to be run out of office by someone who isn't really a conservative -- wrapped between two slices of the Democratic Party.

UPDATE: I just can't get the taste out of my mouth.

Democrats (those luminaries Reid and Pelosi) decided to drop the renewable energy standard out of the energy bill and drop the tax title (see Toby Barlow's "News Alert: If You Love Renewable Energy, It's Time to Freak Out" 11/09/07). No tax title means no extension of the investment tax credit for wind nor solar, adding up to precisely zero for renewable energy in the energy bill. Bravo!

You know that lingering flavor you get when you burp a bit of vomit in the back of your throat? Yeah, that taste.

"What Digby Said" . . . The Movie

Friday: 42 Iraqis Killed, 29 Wounded

Now wouldn't that be cool? Or at least a book, "The Collected Works," or "The Complete Digby." God she's the best.

I've put a new feature on the left side of the blog that links the top ten items I feel like sharing with you, my faithful readers -- all 32 of you. I can see a day when the
"What's Mark Reading" list is all Digby, all the time.


But I'll take that risk. You could do far worse. If you read one blog a day, Make sure it's Hullabaloo, The Wit and Wisdom of Digby."

The Writer's Strike? Solidarity for what Digby said. Huckabee? We all agree. Rudy? Yep, that too. The myth of male dominance in Blogtopia? Skippy gets credit for the list (and of course for coining the phrase.)

She gets Hat Tips, (and Tent Tips), for her unrelenting lambasting of the "pack of useless assholes" who inhabit Washington D.C., and I can't believe I can read her for free.

On any given day, a link to Digby's site is worth a thousand, "Geez, I wish I'd said thats."

Effective Disorder

by shep

Eugene Robinson:

"It's official: Bush Derangement Syndrome is now a full-blown epidemic. George W. Bush apparently has reduced more of his fellow citizens to frustrated, sputtering rage than any president since opinion polling began, with the possible exception of Richard Nixon. . .”

Mitch McConnell:

"The war is winding down. Next year's election is going to be about this Congress and what it failed to do"

Michael Crowley:

"I wonder whether the Democrats have been preparing for that possibility -- and what their contingency plans are if the Iraq debate tacks substantially back the GOP's way."

Karl Rove:

"The Democratic victory in 2006 was narrow. They won the House by 85,961 votes out of over 80 million cast and the Senate by a mere 3,562 out of over 62 million cast. A party that wins control by that narrow margin can quickly see its fortunes reversed when it fails to act responsibly, fails to fulfill its promises, and fails to lead.”

"People in the past who have been on the nutty fringe of political life, who were more or less voiceless, have now been given an inexpensive and easily accessible soapbox, a blog.”

And that’s one reason you’re out of the White House and forced to peddle your delusions on the permanently deranged pages of the Wall Street Journal’s op-ed. That is, after helping to create a permanent Republican minority.

Lets’ all pray for a slow and painful recovery.

H/T Dan Froomkin

[Cross-posted at E Pluribus Unum]

They Think We're Stupid

Thursday: 2 US Soldiers, 47 Iraqis Killed; 33 Iraqis Wounded

Okay, I'll try to "Respect the Dodd," but Greenwald has a point.

Every time Congressional Democrats failed this year to stop the Bush administration (i.e., every time they "tried"), the excuse they gave was that they "need 60 votes in the Senate" in order to get anything done. Each time Senate Republicans blocked Democratic legislation, the media helpfully explained not that Republicans were obstructing via filibuster, but rather that, in the Senate, there is a general "60-vote requirement" for everything.

It isn't just the Mukasey nomination, but damn near everything.

Okay, Congress finally overturned a Bush veto -- saving precious pork projects for the home team. But this isn't a matter of ignoring versus pandering to the "base" of the Democratic party. 95% of people who call themselves Democrats and a 60% majority of Republicans, along with 68% of Independents have absolutely HAD IT with this spoiled brat of a President in my all important Swing State of Ohio. Those numbers track nationally and Ohio traditionally polls more conservative than average.

You don't indulge a spoiled child when they throw a tantrum -- you ignore it, send him to his room or give him a time-out. If they're really out of control, you spank them. You certainly don't make excuses for him.

But that's what the Democrats, at least enough of them to make a mockery of the word discipline, always seem to do when going up against George W. Bush.

And what do they tell us, what excuses do they make? "The alternative is worse." Or, "The timing isn't right." Or most cowardly of all, "the GOP will use this against us in the next election."

I don't buy this whatsoever. We hate what Bush is doing, hate Congress even more for not stopping him, and yet they fear opposing him because, what? We'll hate them even more? Is that even possible? Could they be more cowardly?

I think the Democratic Party, at least the leadership, is suffering from decades of abuse at the hands of the GOP, who've made sport of abusing them. They're acting irrational, and against the public will (which will get them unelected faster than anything) because they're suffering from a collective post traumatic stress disorder.

Shake it off! Quit running scared. And just stop thinking that you can fool us. We're Democrats because we aren't dumb enough to believe what the GOP has been trying to bamboozle the public with for the last 40 years -- so we aren't buying your bullshit either.

But even more distressing is being smart enough to really know the Democrats are not cowards, and fully understand their motivation for risking the perpetuation of this myth:

The answer is simple: they're not poll-driven cowards; they're cynical electioneering manipulators. -- Spoons

Of all the ranting and raving I've seen on the Intertoobz, from the snarky to the in depth policy analysis -- and even the psycho/sociological examinations of right versus left, nobody has hit it out of the park with a out-of-the-box perception like ThereIsNoSpoon's take on the current political dynamics inside the Capital Building.

In fact, to act at all in such a way that would demonstrate they have real power, would be to take responsibility for the absolute mess this country is currently in--from housing troubles to currency collapses to global warming issues to foreign policy disasters to a host of other troubles.

On the other hand, to fan the flames of public resentment against the current holders of power for perceived wrongs is nothing short of electoral gold. Republicans were brilliant about doing this for years in their role as a minority opposition party: they would successfully trash Democrats while offering no coherent solutions of their own beyond a culture of "I've got mine; screw you." It was only when forced to actually attempt to govern that Republicans ended up sowing the seeds of their own demise.

An important and utterly perverse corollary of these two premises is that, so long as we have an unpopular Republican president and a Democratic legislature, the Executive must be seen as overwhelmingly powerful compared to the Legislative for Democrats to win. So long as the public believes that Bush is driving the train and the Democrats are itching but unable to get into the driver's seat, the public will be so angry by November 2008 that they will toss Bush and anyone associated with him out of the driver's seat and put Democrats in charge. Thus, so long as Democrats keep their eye on electoral victory rather than on their oath of office, Article I of the Constitution is doomed to near irrelevance if not extinction.

Hopefully, that's just in the short term. Frankly, it makes me want to start from scratch. But if it works -- and the reelection of Bush in '04 suggests it is -- then the Republicans are right: We are stupid.

And as long as the Versailles Press goes along with the program, most of America will be none the wiser.

Shorter Krauthammer

Being a Puppet Master is Hard Work!

Don't Miss Out

Hey Kids. Now you can get updates to all the Dispassionately Liberal goodness sent directly to your email inbox.

Don't miss another episode!

Click Here for Email updates, or look for the link on the right sidebar.

Subscribe via Email

OR

Subscribe in a reader

bin Laden’s Wet Dreams

by shep

They hate us for our Prada:

The FBI confirmed it has issued an "intelligence information report" warning of possible Al Qaeda attacks on Los Angeles and Chicago shopping malls over the holiday season.

The warning states Al Qaeda has been planning the attack for the past two years with the intension to disrupt the U.S. economy...

Lightweights.

Let’s leave it to the Republicans and their corporate masters; the real experts at “creative destruction”:

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, warning that higher inflation and weaker economic growth could be in store, told Congress Thursday that the central bank is keeping a close eye on the subprime mortgage crisis and recent spike in oil prices.

Heckuva job, Bushie.

You guys, yeah the islamofascistjihadicaliphatists in the high mountain caves of Pakistan, you can just relax – smoke it if you’ve got it. You are no match for our CEOs and our MBA president.

[Cross-posted at E Pluribus Unum]

Keith Olbermann, Daniel Levin and Waterboarding

Wednesday: 52 Iraqis Killed, 38 Wounded

Cross Posted at E. Pluribus Unum and KOS-posted too.

It would seem that Radar online is less than impressed with Keith Olbermann's Special Comment Tuesday where he minced no words in accusing President Bush of being a criminal who condoned torture due to the story of former Acting Deputy Attorney General Dan Levin, who was fired after he subjected himself to waterboarding and declared it to be "torture."

The memo Levin wrote is here.

This thing was in response to a directive from POTUS that superseded Gonzo's ridiculous edict that asserted torture was only something that caused "severe" pain which was limited to "excruciating and agonizing" or equivalent to the same pain felt "serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death."

Bush threw out the 2002 definition Gonzo gave us that pretty much allowed anything short of 40 lashes and asked for a new definition, which starts with the International Convention Against Torture (CAT) . . .

"The fact remains, however, that the only relevant definition of 'torture' is the definition contained in [the] CAT. . . .")"
***
The CAT defines "torture" so as to require the intentional infliction of "severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental."


If it's torture, it's illegal under Federal Criminal Statutes, and specifically the statute in question incorporated the CAT to fulfill our obligations under that treaty. Bush said unambiguously "We do not torture." This memo takes Bush at his word and ignores all that mumbo jumbo about "inherent war powers" as unnecessary in light of his statement.

The statutes in question start here.

That's the "definition" section . . . ["torture" means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering ] --my emphasis. Threats are sufficient, including threats to others, like family members ala Higazy which I wrote about here...

Penalties are in the next section, part 2340(a).

Even attempting Torture is a crime punishable for up to 20 years, and can result in the death penalty if the victim dies. This applies to all offenders who are US nationals or anyone if it takes place within the US. Conspiracy to commit torture does not carry the death penalty, but can result in 20yrs, or life imprisonment if the victim dies.

Okay, that's the preliminaries. The statute, the CAT and Part I of the memo. Part II is looking at parsing this sentence into 4 separate ideas...
"specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering".
1. "severe"
2. "severe physical pain OR suffering"
3. "severe mental pain or suffering"
4. "specifically intended."

I have a feeling the rub will be the last part, so I'm skipping to #4.
The parsing here is whether you intend to commit the act itself that results in the severe pain and suffering, or that you specifically intended the results -- the severe pain and suffering itself.

The courts are inconsistent and ambiguous in the difference, if any, between general intent and specific intent. The idea is whether you intended merely to shoot someone (which may or may not have killed the victim) or did you intend that the victim actually die. Did you intend the act, or the result of the act as well?

Usually this is a distinction without a difference. As a practical matter, when a result is almost certain to occur from an intentional act, the courts allow the inference that the result was intended regardless of the actual desire of the accused -- but this inference can be a question of fact for a jury. Some cases say you need a conscious desire, others only require that the result is reasonably foreseeable.

Interestingly enough, Levin elects not to parse this, holding Bush to his word. (silly boy)

"We do not believe it is useful to try to define the precise meaning of "specific intent" in section 2340. (27) In light of the President's directive that the United States not engage in torture, it would not be appropriate to rely on parsing the specific intent element of the statute to approve as lawful conduct that might otherwise amount to torture."

He notes that if someone had a conscious desire to inflict "severe physical or mental pain and suffering," that would mean they specifically intended to commit torture. BUT, if he acted in good faith, and conducted a reasonable investigation to find out if his actions would result in "severe physical or mental pain and suffering," then he does not meet the specific intent requirement of the statute and any resulting pain and suffering would be unintentional.

There's a lot of gray area between those two scenarios. But that's what juries are for. Also he looks at motive. Torture for a "good reason" still is torture, even for threats to National Security. The last paragraph is looking at a kind of "attempted" torture. The threat is made (even though the perpetrator "really didn't mean it"), and to avoid torture the victim does what the perpetrator demands and isn't touched. That's still criminal under the statute.

I'm reading this and thinking that Higazy should be given his own key to Fort Knox.

Back to the phrase, "specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering" he takes apart the word "severe" and decides is just an ordinary english word -- goes to the dictionary: extreme, violent or intense, hard to sustain or endure . . . then the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (1984) -- the CAT limits torture as an extreme practice, unusually cruel.

It's a tautology, using comments on "torture" to define "severe" in the definition of torture. But such is legal reasoning,

Torture, being "severe" is more that (get this) ordinary "acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

But this is something carrying the death penalty, not your run of the mill assault. "[T]orture is the gravest form of [cruel, inhuman, or degrading] treatment [or] punishment."

The guy Levin is good, a real lawyer who actually did his homework -- unlike Gonzales who tried to make this distinction by pulling crap out of his ass. The DOJ told the Senate, torture was "barbaric cruelty which lies at the top of the pyramid of human rights misconduct." This of course was when the Reagan administration wanted this to be passed and accepted by as many countries, even the thuggish ones, as possible. Back in the day . . . when the POTUS has a minimal respect for international law.

BECAUSE, while the CAT says one thing, Levin doesn't think that the US statutes "intended to reach only conduct involving 'excruciating and agonizing' pain or suffering."

"Although there is some support for this formulation in the ratification history of the CAT, a proposed express understanding to that effect was "criticized for setting too high a threshold of pain," and was not adopted."

So . . . where's the line? Where is "severe" among . . . "substantial, extreme, intense, excruciating, or agonizing." Here Levin looks at the civil statute (Higazy's friend), the Torture Victims Protection Act (TVPA). It doesn't so much judge degrees of pain and suffering, but looks to WHY the victim was subject to the conduct.

*** for such purposes as obtaining from that individual or a third person information or a confession *** intimidating or coercing***

Again the word "severe" is used and the Courts have decided that term is "crucial." The conduct proscribed by the [CAT] and the TVPA is sufficiently extreme and outrageous to warrant the universal condemnation.

"The more intense, lasting, or heinous the agony, the more likely it is to be torture."

The case law is summarized on the TVPA in cases where torture was NOT found:
1) where the details of a beating weren't sufficiently provided to give the court enough of an idea of their "severity" including their frequency, duration, the parts of the body at which they were aimed, and the weapons used,
2) Death threats alone did NOT constitute torture.

Torture was found to have occurred in a case where the behavior was more unusual and detailed evidence provided that a course of conduct was torture that included:
1) "severe" beatings of plaintiff,
2) repeated threats of death and electric shock,
3) sleep deprivation,
4) extended shackling to a cot (at times with a towel over his nose and mouth and water poured down his nostrils),
5) seven months of confinement in a "suffocatingly hot" and cramped cell,
6) eight years of solitary or near-solitary confinement.

I get the feeling that any single one of these acts might not be considered torture, but together it's a pattern of behavior that is undoubtedly torture and other examples where not a single act, but a course of extreme conduct was found to be torture.

Under this definition, which seems perfectly sound on it's face without more research, one act of waterboarding won't get you life in prison.

(2) The meaning of "severe physical pain or suffering."

Here Levin distinguishes between pain versus suffering, determining that severe suffering CAN OCCUR WITHOUT PAIN. This is a big difference between Gonzo's definition and Levin. Words mean things: "or suffering" is not supposed to be ignored.

Likewise, physical suffering, even if not painful, is different from mental suffering. BUT, Congress, in ratifying the statute and the diplomats writing the CAT talked about pain AND suffering, even though the statute they passed says pain OR suffering. The debate record shows the Senators used the phrases interchangeably without any apparent difference in meaning.

Levin decides that despite this, words still mean things, and the OR is there for a reason . . . BUT . . . "To constitute such torture, "severe physical suffering" would have to be a condition of some extended duration or persistence as well as intensity."

I think this might be where he can say waterboarding, while not painful, if done persistently, for a long time, again and again possibly, can be "severe physical suffering."

(3) The meaning of "severe mental pain or suffering."

Read "severe" here to mean, "prolonged."

"Mental harm" must be caused by acts falling within one of the four listed acts:
1) threatened or actual infliction of severe physical pain or suffering
2) giving the victim drugs
3) death threat
4) the threat to a 3rd person of one of the above.

This is an "exclusive" list. Meaning there are no other acts that can cause mental harm and still be considered the result of torture but the ones listed. Also, actual mental harm must result, and is not merely presumed every time these acts are committed. Literally, no harm, no foul.

And the severe/prolonged "harm" means there is actual damage, an injury to one's mental state that must last for a reasonable period of time. It can't be instantly gotten over, nor must it be permanent damage.

Here's where I digress again. The purpose of putting someone on the waterboard is to induce panic. There are physical manifestations (suffering) of panic as well as the obvious harm to the psyche. That's it's purpose, that's why you do it -- to alter the victim's mental state so they are more compliant.

I don't know, however, if just doing it to someone whose mental state is altered enough to spill the beans, and when it's over and they calm down they're okay after an hour or two would fit the definition of torture. On the other hand, if they'd been kept in solitary, roughed up a few times, subject to extremes of heat and/or cold, kept in "stress positions" and deprived of sleep or food -- and then were put on the waterboard; there's no doubt they are a torture victim and like Padilla, were probably really messed up in the head by the time they saw the light of day.

Now, remember, simple assault of a prisoner is a war crime. Torture is a war crime that can get you the chair.

OKAY. . . that's the English translation of the Justice Department's interpretation of the torture statute. Waterboarding is mentioned as one part of a continuing pattern of abuse that taken together constituted torture. This doesn't mention anything like the story Keith told of Levin being waterboarded himself, or that he says anywhere in the memo that this act -- ALL BY ITSELF is torture. Do it a lot, however, or as part of a scheme to break someone down systematically over time, it's torture.

Does that help?

These guys misstate the memo, and claim that Levin won't discuss the situation further beyond the memo. (So how did ABC get the story about him subjecting himself to waterboarding?)

It's also assault, a felony, last time I looked, and a war crime. It's a war crime merely to humiliate prisoners.



Although there is wiggle room, for Radar online to suggest that waterboarding is "perfectly legal" is as stupid as saying Levin was actually tortured when he voluntarily had himself waterboarded. Even if it's not torture (done once for 10 seconds, with no threats, no other bad treatment -- yeah right) it is always illegal if it's involuntary, it's assault and battery, and if done to an enemy combatant or others protected under Geneva, it's a war crime notwithstanding it not being worthy of the death penalty.

But note, if someone dies, accidentally, while being waterboarded -- Olbermann is absolutely right and that perpetrator will face the death penalty. UNLESS he acted in good faith, and conducted a reasonable investigation to find out if his actions would result in "severe physical or mental pain and suffering,"