You Might Be A Hopelessly Deluded Wingnut If...

Little Green Footballs mocks your antics at a "Tea Party" as "some really deranged stuff."

... Or Allahpundit question's your (Glenn Beck's) sanity (and not just Allah, who points to a call for Beck's excommunication.)

... Or when four of your colleagues at the Washington Post use the that very same paper to smack down your piece of shit column (George Will) as full of outright crap.

... Or your call screener let's a Republican veteran through to call you (Rush Limbaugh) a "Brainwashed Nazi" for supporting torture, leaving you stuttering and resorting to calling one of your natural allies an "idiot" instead of even attempting to defend your miserably pathetic point of view.

Oliver Willis tweets that he's "NEVER seen the gop this insane," but points us to a letter to the NY Times' editor that sums up what the conservatives have always been about. 

It never ceases to amaze me that conservatives view themselves as an aggrieved minority victimized by vast forces beyond their control. Conservative opinions are heard in every major news outlet, including this paper. Conservatives have held the presidency for 20 out of the last 28 years. Conservatives controlled all three branches of government from 2003 to 2006.

Antitax “tea parties” inspired by talk radio, like the one staged in Northport, N.Y., are the actions of spoiled children who are unable to confront the real problems facing our country today.

They're just marginalized, outnumbered, exposed as the frauds they are; and like a cornered animal, acting very stupid. Dangerous, violent, but still stupid.

Wingnuts Practicing Their ... Love ... For Obama

This really is all they've got, isn't it. Allahpundit tweets that a fraction of a second's stutter while the President was delivering a speech in France today was "Comedy gold" because Obama allegedly lost his place on the teleprompter.

Honestly, pointing out the daily barrage of moronic malaprops and linguistic lunacy emanating from our previous president is too easy.  Comparing Bush to Obama is like comparing nails on a blackboard to a Shakespearean sonnet.  Besides, it's not even funny, let alone indicative of anything whatsoever.  Neither is any politician reading a speech from a script.

I mean, "Got wood?"  Come on, an entire cottage industry has been born of idiotic Bushisms.  Is it really fair to compare the most well spoken POTUS in a generation to someone who  firmly believes: "You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test?"  No, of course not.  Commander Guy is in an embarrassing league all his own.

No, far better to bring on the Best that the GOP offered since Lincon, the actor who played second fiddle to a chimp.

"Facts are stupid things." --Ronald Reagan, misquoting John Adams in a speech to the Republican convention.

Flirtin With The Fascists

I may be indulging in some naive wishful thinking, but I truly believe it is a testament to our unique form of government, a federated three-tiered, three-branched representative republic -- not to mention a bounty of natural resources, robust industrial tradition and innovative technological leadership -- that has kept America from falling into some form of totalitarianism. 

We've maintained a democracy (of sorts) for 220 years now, due in no small part because the all too frustrating, grid-locking, gob-smackingly slow mechanisms put in place to protect and give voice to minority concerns by and large keeps the fascist thugs on the right from armed revolt and the left satisfied with navel-gazing debates.

Unitary Moonbat at Docuharma has posted a treatise on the rise of Mussolini (my favorite right-wing nutjob of all time) who as a radical newspaper publisher is described as a 1920's version of a blogger that became the prototype of a right-wing dictator for over two decades.  (And you thought Allahpundit's delusions of grandeur were actually delusional.) 

This passage stood out for me.

The Moral of the Section:  In Any Move Toward a Totalitarian State, the Middle Class Must Be Either Dealt In or Dealt With  Even though any group of five or more leftists would be hard-pressed to successfully organize a trip to the bathroom, to say nothing of overthrowing a country, the right fears our numbers and knows that any reckoning in a class war is going to go very poorly for them.  Accordingly, they can be co-opted into doing what they feel they need to do in order to secure their privilege and wealth.  If that means supporting fascist goons, they'll do it - and if the goons wind up feeling legitimized by the whole sordid affair, well, that's less of a pressing concern than land or wealth redistribution, anyway.  Another option is the Stalinist approach of simply eliminating the entire class, or the Hitlerian one of  placing it under rigid control, but when the right makes its move in this country, my money's on them taking after Mussolini's approach.

I have firmly believed that America is much more susceptible to falling victim to a fascist takeover than any form of socialism/communism grabbing hold ever since reading William L. Shirer's classic The Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich a lifetime ago.  Communism has never been established in a nation where a robust middle class rose from the Industrial Revolution.  Eastern Europe (save the forcibly annexed East Germany and Poland), Russia, China and SE Asia however, had populations dominated by peasantry and at the dawn of the 20th century their societies were not organized much beyond their feudal roots.

You wingnuts who happened by this post might as well just stop reading now if you have no appreciation for the stark differences between Leninist/Maoist communism and the social-democracy practiced in much of Western Europe today.  If your understanding of political ideology doesn't go much beyond the idea that Marxism and Muslim are mashable into a made-up "Islamofascist" enemy that shockingly -- to you -- has no earth-bound adherents, let's just agree to disagree and move on.  Also, if you actually paid full price for Jonah Goldberg's fairy tale, or nodded along to a single passage, go away.  Seriously.  Calling liberals fascists is like insisting that the neo-cons are all liberals too because they began as disaffected followers of Democratic-hawk Scoop Jackson.  No. Just no. 

Mussolini's Italy was a mixed bag and could have gone either way.  They remained a predominately agrarian economy and preserved their monarchy through World War I, but they also nurtured a vibrant if not colorful democracy and their corporate/industrial class was still substantial.  Remember, by definition you cannot establish fascism without a healthy business sector.  In Mussolini's own words, "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- irregardless of the circular disavowel of this well known quote by modern revisionists like Public Eye quoting Wikipedia quoting Public Eye who are contradicted by, ironically, Wikipedia which defines fascism as "an authoritarian, nationalist and corporatist ideology."

[Note to Public Eye: a certified copy of Benito's hand written notes affirming this quotation will be sent to your offices forthwith, along with Barack Obama's original birth certificate.  I can't wait to get that free subscription to your rag. ;-) Honestly, when Benito advocates a strict laissez-faire attitude towards businesses so long as they operate in the interest and under the thumb of the state, institutionalizing the spectre of crony capitalism and banksterism, that's equating fascism with corporatism whether or not Mussolini said something so generally accepted it appears in thousands of secondary sources.  His verifiable quotes do not contradict the corporatist/fascist nexis whatsoever.  Just saying it does, doesn't make it so.]

For those still doing enemy recon, fascism, nazi-ism and national-"socialism" are interchangeable terms -- and have NOTHING to do with "socialism" as practiced on either side of the old Iron Curtain. We are talking about a totalitarian dictatorship co-opting (as opposed to eliminating and taking over) the major industries of a country, quietly promoting private wealth disparity but running the business sector with such a cruel efficiency that unemployment (and thus discontent) is redued to near ideal levels.  Communist dictatorships likewise rely on fear and coersion of the police-state, but are the polar opposite of fascism economically, (theoretically at least) sharing ownership, wealth and production, completely eliminating instead of concentrating power in the business class.  The fascist of the 1920s and 30s offered themselves up as the anti-communists, and so they were.

If you don't have both private ownership of commerce and finance plus a free, open democracy charged with providing stuartship of community services (currency creation, fire & crime protection, transportation infrastructure, education, and at least basic health and elder care), as well as regulation of industry for the common good through promotion of competition and fair labor standards, you don't have "socialism" as we know it in the West today, more unambiguously termed social-democracy. 

Honest, that's ALL it really is.  From what I can tell, student of politics that I am, the only difference between "European-style socialism" and what we have here in the United States is government sponsored health care and a more relaxed attitude towards smoking pot.  Oh, and taking regulation of the economy seriously. kthxbai. 

[Note to the Galtists: Destroying this system through some kind of general strike is exactly what Mussolini and Franco dreamed of doing by exploiting and absorbing "National Syndicalism" movements into their fascist regimes -- for which ample primary sources abound.]

For comparison, like his BFF Castro, Hugo Chavez is running a communist dictatorship, not a socialist democracy -- landslide elections notwithstanding.  One key to identifying the difference is whether the regime would remain intact without the charismatic leader or his annointed successor pulling the strings, or their inclination to voluntarily step down at the end of their original term in office.  An industrial base and thriving middle class also separates commie dictatorships like Venezula from social-democracies.  And capitalism, sure.

You don't see a lot of manufacturing in Cuba or Venezula, but the beleagered General Motors just sunk a billion dollars (of our money) into their Brazillian factories to make eco-friendly cars running on sugar cane.  Interestingly enough, while Brazil's government structure closely mimics the United States, they don't have a political party any self-respecting conservative would belong to.  The four major political parties of the world's fourth largest democracy are the "Workers' Party (PT), Brazilian Social Democracy Party (PSDB), Brazilian Democratic Movement Party (PMDB), and Democrats (formerly Liberal Front Party - PFL). I think it's time to start teaching Portugese in Michigan's public schools.  They've got as much going for them as we did in the 50's, minus the rabid McCarthyism.  The future looks bright in the Amazon delta.

Early 20th Century Germany was a modern industrial democracy when their pre-war social/political upheavals gave birth to their version of facsism.  Fear of the communist bogeyman were real, but also exploitable by the right which propelled Hitler to power.  While lacking the industrial infrastructure of Germany, like Hitler both Italy's Mussolini and the ultra-nationalist Francisco Franco of Spain came to power standing on the ashes of a republican form of government.  They rose with the help of the right, not on the backs of the left. 

The nations that went full-bore towards communism lacked the democratic institutions that separate much of the west from the despotic monarchies of old.  Also, save for an aristocratic class of nobility sitting on inherited wealth, there was no investor/industrial class to speak of that could fund a movement well enough (ie. buy enough goons) to keep the rabble from tearing down the mansions. 

America's industrial foundations dwarf the world, and have for a century.  We've never had an institutionalized peasantry, at least not since Emancipation, and bowing to the whims of a king have been anathema to the American psyche since the Pilgrims' first harvest.  There simply never were enough of the necessary ingredients in this country for the seeds of a true communist state to ferment.  Or at least we possessed the neccessary bullworks that thwart a leftist revolution from germinating without resorting to mercenary elimination of the mob's threat.


Red-baiting is just a canard, a partisan tool with no rhyme or reason.  Fascism in America, on the other hand, a marriage of government with corporate interests running what amounts to a police state?  Hell, technically that's what we were living under for most of the Bush/Cheney regime -- at least that's what was confirmed last week.

All too easy it is for America to silently slip into fascism.  So subtle in fact few of us even noticed its near fait accompli -- or appreciate how important it now is to dismantle and expose the attempted politicization of our Justice Department which could have spelled disaster for us all had apparachik more competent than Karl Rove and Alberto Gonzales been playing Goebbels and Himmler for Herren Bush und Cheney and usurped the legal system to destroy their political enemies.

Fortunately, a grudging respect for an overwhelming electoral victory not even Diebold could fix -- combined with the intellectual bankruptcy of the Republican Party's leadership who have provided us only empty-suited candidates, mere figureheads, actors and hacks for decades -- those sheer numbers the right justifiably fear in what is empirically a center-left population could not be overcome; especially when someone as charismatic and brilliant as Barack Obama emerges to exploit the GOP's clumsy flirtation with a 21st century fascist coup.

Conservatism Is To Conserve As Dogma Is To Dog

Joe - @JoeNBC - Scarborough told me (and all of his Twitter followers) to go read a long and wonkish "autopsy" of the now deceased conservative movement at TNR: Conservatism Is Dead. (Yeah ... I KNOoooW!)

Sam Tanenhaus traces the evolution, or rather convolutions of what conservatism used to mean in the time of intellectual giants like Burke and Disraeli to something utterly foreign to anything they would recognize -- now in its death throws as Limbaugh's nihilism, Boehner's reflexive (and irrelevant) opposition for its own sake, and 13 year-old fascists fight over the necrotic scraps of a movement gone wrong.

Current orthodoxy in right wing circles insists that our recently relieved Commander in Chief was in no way a "true" conservative. I, like Tanenhaus, find zero support for this whimsical notion in the historical record or my own jaundiced memory. This is because the recent incarnation of the modern conservative movement is as far removed from the classic 19th Century conservatism of Burke as could possibly be imagined. Only by denying what conservatives are can they possibly identify with some far-off idealized philosophy that barely existed in 19th century Britain, and has nothing to do with the conservative movement as it has developed in 21st Century America.

By their lights, they are right to do so. Bush, so often labeled a traitor to conservative principles, was in fact more steadfastly devoted to them than any of his Republican predecessors--including Ronald Reagan. Few on the right acknowledge this today, for obvious reasons. But not so long ago many did. At his peak, following September 11, Bush commanded the loyalties of every major faction of the Republican Party. The big central domestic proposal of his first term, the $1.3 trillion tax cut, extended Reagan's massive "tax reform" from the 1980s. Shortly before the Iraq invasion, Martin Anderson, Reagan's top domestic policy adviser, told Bill Keller (writing in The New York Times Magazine) that Bush was unmistakably Reagan's heir. "On taxes, on education, it was the same. On Social Security, Bush's position was exactly what Reagan always wanted and talked about in the '70s," Anderson said. "I just can't think of any major policy issue on which Bush was different." The prime initiative of Bush's second term, the attempt to privatize Social Security, drew directly on movement scripture: Milton Friedman denounced the "compulsory annuities" of Social Security in Capitalism and Freedom. Buckley noted the advantages of "voluntary" accounts in his early manifesto, Up From Liberalism. So did Barry Goldwater during his presidential campaign in 1964. Bush went further than Reagan, too, in the war he waged against the federal bureaucracy. And his attacks on the "liberal-left bias of the major media" were the most aggressive since Nixon's.

And then there was Iraq, the event that shaped Bush's presidency and, by most accounts, brought both him and the movement to ruin. It was also the event most at odds with classic conservative thinking. It is customary even now to say that the architects of the Iraq occupation failed because they naively placed too much faith in democracy. In fact, the problem was just the opposite. So contemptuous of the actual requirements of civil society at home, Bush's war planners gave no serious thought to how difficult it might be to create such a society in a distant land with a vastly different history. Those within the administration who tried to make this case were marginalized or removed from power.

Bush was the epitome of what conservatives have become, exactly what they insisted was the correct way to manage our society. He represents a completely failed ideology which results in a crippling cognitive dissonance within the right that can only be resolved when they not only abandon Bush the man, but also reject the evolution of conservatism over the last 50 years, pretending that Goldwater, Nixon, Bush I and II and even Saint Reagan never happened.

To gain any credibility beyond the likes Joe The Plumber, history must be revised to reflect a fantasy world where it was not just "moonbat leftists sounding the alarm that Bush/Cheney were crafting a Kafkaesque police state. Bush the Big Spender is roundly denounced, yet putting the cost of the war back ON the books is chichanery, not transparency by the Obama administration. Reagan raising taxes after he lowered them is never discussed in polite company, and neither was his contribution to the national debt and exponential growth of government.

No doubt part of what we are witnessing is the politics of partisan convenience, the time-test rule of IOKIYAR. However, the incomprehensible nonsense from Republicans also reflects a movement that if not dead, is utterly confused. Lost. Easy prey to those who insist that tax rates designed to return to 39.5% according to the Bush administration's own plan becomes a radical socialist plot when the folks who make $350,000 a year have to pay an extra $4.10 a day more in taxes two years from now. Eat the Rich indeed, for the price of an extra latte.

Those whose tribal instincts require a continued conservative identity have no direction, no leaders untouched by the despotism and disgrace of the last few decades, blame for a nation left in shambles with their guiding principles exposed as merely convenient platitudes to consolodate power for its own sake, and a defining ideology found to be as maleable and thin as an oil-slick.

Sad to say, until they can muster an electoral win around which to rally, the untested, untainted young man who at 13 years old "wowed" them at CPAC has as much authority on the definition of the future of conservativism as the likes of Bill Kristol or even Rush Limbaugh. Jonathan Krohn defines the four principles of conservatives as:

1. Respect for the Constitution
2. Respect for Life
3. Less Government
4. Personal Responsibility.

If you look at this list with any type of critical eye (accepting as did the CPAC faithful that this boy was imparting wisdom from on high) you cannot escape the notion that just like every other conservative leader of the last 50 years their core positions are vague to the point of being meaningless, or a laugh-out-loud lie. Yet few Republicans would refute any of these notions, unless they were honest with themselves. I guess that's why even while agreeing with several if not all these principles in the abstract, liberals call themselves the reality based community -- because the the Republicans violated all of these principles when they had power, at every turn. Their governing style was the polar opposite from principle of any kind whatsoever.

I suppose young Master Krohn can be forgiven his youthful exuberance, yet I fear that he like so many of his fellow travelers is quite delusional and has a cynicism far too great for one so lacking in real world experience.

"Respect for the Constitution" should by definition not only require an abhorrence of indefinite detention, mistreatment of prisoners and blanket surveillance of American citizens without warrants as perpetrated by BushCo, but also reject and renounce conducting warfare not condoned by Congress as both Reagan and Nixon did with impunity in Central America and Cambodia. At least George W. Bush tipped his hat to the legislative branch by securing an Authorization to use Military Force in Iraq, however his "respect" for the judicial prerogatives embodied in the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments leave much to be desired.

"Respect for Life?" Unless this notion is strictly construed to mean only an anti-abortion position, the bloodlust of Republicans' insistence that we not only pump most of our national treasure into the military but also take every opportunity to use it -- not to mention the time-honored affection of the right for the death penalty -- brings this rule down to the level of the Pirate Code: more like guidelines than an actual law.

"Less Government" is more a Libertarian than Republican ideal, a joke both those on the right and left acknowledge hasn't been seriously attempted by any administration since Herbert Hoover. The delusional part of standard GOP rhetoric is that they can "return" to a fiscal responsibility they never practiced. Moreover, as one of the very few heretics honestly attempting a self-appraisal, conservative David Frum notes the shrinking appeal of such notions in a time of dire economic emergency:

Government is implicated in many of today's top domestic concerns as well … But the connection between big government and today's most pressing problems is not as close or as pressing as it was 27 years ago. So, unsurprisingly, the anti-big-government message does not mobilize the public the way it once did.

Implicit in Frum's analysis is the idea of limited government's appeal as a campaign device as opposed to an actualy governing tool. Nowhere can any serious political scientist or campaign hack ever say such a thing has existed, at least since FDR. Frum also touches upon the last of the core conservative principles announced by the future's answer to Newt Gingrich (who still won't be old enough to vote in the next presidential election).

"Personal Responsibility" can mean many things to many people. It can be something as innocuous as not taking bribes or uncontroversial as keeping one's sexual indiscretions out of the public eye. As in so many things however, it can also serve as code to the rabid GOP base. In this case it masked their agenda for elimination of all forms of welfare and destruction of the social safety nets of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security while opposing anything resembling universal health care, a progressive tax structure or even minimal regulation of the jungle laws of free marketeering.

Frum points out that the conservatives have lost the high ground on this part of the debate even if one ignores the culture of corruption by Tom DeLay's K-Street Project, the rash of Republicans implicated in sex scandals that often as not push well beyond the occasional tawdry affair, or the GOP Congressmen who spent more time in prison than on any campaign trail the last few years. And let's not forget the burning of CIA agents when they are politically inconvenient.

On the one side, the president of the United States: soft-spoken and conciliatory, never angry, always invoking the recession and its victims. This president invokes the language of "responsibility," and in his own life seems to epitomize that ideal: He is physically honed and disciplined, his worst vice an occasional cigarette. He is at the same time an apparently devoted husband and father. Unsurprisingly, women voters trust and admire him.

And for the leader of the Republicans? A man who is aggressive and bombastic, cutting and sarcastic, who dismisses the concerned citizens in network news focus groups as "losers." With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history, Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence—exactly the image that Barack Obama most wants to affix to our philosophy and our party. And we're cooperating! Those images of crowds of CPACers cheering Rush's every rancorous word—we'll be seeing them rebroadcast for a long time.

Frum is fighting an uphill battle against El Rushbo's megaphone, but will be redeemed in the long run despite his heresy. At least I hope so. No, really.

It serves no one, especially the ideals of a robust republic designed for the victory of the best ideas over well financed tactics and transparent stunts winning the day. We cannot afford an opposition party, even while in the minority, to be relegated to the ridiculous and extreme lest the party in power indulge in the excesses the checks and balances institutionalized by the Founders were designed to prevent. If they are to retain a legitimate voice, let alone the power to filibuster, they owe it to us all to be more than the party of "No."

Ironically, for now, it has fallen to the liberals of this country to perserve and honor -- conserve if you will -- the institutions and customs that have made this nation great. Glad to do it, even in the face of the usual slurs from the right that us Dirty F'ing Hippies hate America, because right now we are the best hope for the future for all Americans. Even for the fake plumbers and moose shooters who think their world would be a better place without us, or determine they have to teach us a lesson and go John Galt on us. It's our responsibility to make their lives better too. It'd be a lot easier if they grew up and stopped playing games though.

Other Than The Occasional Hooker

Just how many jobs do you think Dick Morris ever created?

The draconian tax increases on the segment of the population that pays most of the taxes, generates most of the jobs, employs most of the workforce, and accounts for much of the consumer spending will chill whatever small warmth the stimulus package can generate.

This guy needs to join Karl Rove on a long vacation to the other end of the world.  Preferably without internet access. 

Together they make up the world's worst political consulting gurus.  If the idea that you get paid what you are worth is at all valid, that there is any semblance of merit within our system, neither one would be complaining that they aren't part of the 95% of Americans who will get a tax cut because they make too much money.

Sad to think that there are so many equally deluded conservatives roaming Washington DC who will never get the chance to get paid to write nonsensical prose -- almost.

We Should Welcome The Oppo Party Posturing

John Cole asks a thought provoking question:

You know, I keep wondering- was the opposition party this petty and stupid during the great depression? When FDR proposed his budget, did some rich prick with a fake tan get up in front of microphones an hour after it was proposed (mind you, this is the same guy who whinged he did not have enough time to read the stimulus bill after a month, but an hour was sufficient time to read the budget), and say “OH MY GOD THE ERA OF BIG GOVERNMENT IS BACK!” Was there a John Boehner of that time period? And this is a serious question- was our politics always this stupid, and were we always suffering from morons like this?

During the depression, were there organizations of idiots running around having little tea parties and chanting porkulus? Or are we as a nation intent on proving Darwin wrong?

From what I can glean, the answer is an unsatisfactory, "Yes, and No."  Roosevelt did not seem to face any significant opposition just for the sake of appearances at the onset of his administration, but by the time he took office in March of 1932 the economics of the Depression and humiliation of the Republican Party were complete and all but irreversible.  Economically, today, we're not there yet, and hopefully we won't dive that deep - but it's getting close.

When things were "only" as bad as they are today, there was still a lot of political posturing and the usual nonsense.  By the time FDR was sworn in, things were much worse than now -- primarily due to an administration that took the political/ideological games seriously and was on the wrong side of the argument while the nation sank into despair for over three years.  If we had another 2-3 years of George W. Bush doing nothing to look forward to, there would barely be a country to hand off to Barack Obama.  That's was Hoover's gift to Franklin Roosevelt.

Historical parallels are never exact, but often instructive.  Consulting my handy 6 volume collection by James Truslow Adams, The March Of Democracy, at least this contemporary historian notes no significant obstructionists to FDR's initiatives at the beginning of his presidency.  The attitude of the population had undergone a remarkable transformation between the Crash and FDR assuming office and Congress reflected that change.  From Adams, Vol. IV, Pg. 338:

In 1928 we had been told we were within sight of perpetual prosperity and the abolition of poverty.  By 1932 we seemed to see nothing but poverty and to be faced by stark ruin on every side.  Few nations, if any, have ever had to drop with such appalling swiftness from superhuman hopes to blank despair.

This was a different time, the nation was in full-blown panic.  The day FDR took office, the national banks of New York and Pennsylvania were added to an ever growing list of financial institutions whose doors were shuttered.  This was fully 3-1/2 years after the infamous stock market crash of 1929 during which the Hoover administration was exposed as inept, Congress completely discredited and the Wall Street types we hate today were even more hated then. 

Institutions familiar even now like National City Bank of New York and Chase National Bank were found to be scandalously mismanaged by their front offices, leading to "collosal losses" just coming to light at the beginning of 1933.  Back then, there was no New Deal era device to protect depositers like the FDIC.  The panic was real, the losses palpable and real hysteria did not need to be pumped up by bloviating pundits and Congressional leaders for political exploitation.

FDR's Cabinet was approved without committee hearings by 6:00 pm on Inauguration Day, March 4, 1933, including Cordell Hull, the first southerner serving as Secretary of State since John C. Calhoun in 1845, and the first woman Cabinet official, Frances Perkins, Secretary of Labor.  Less than a week later, during a special session after only 40 minutes of "debate" the House passed by acclimation the President's banking initiatives, conferring peace-time financial regulation authority previously only considered legal under war conditions through the Trading with the Enemies Act.  The measure passed the Senate 73-7 after considering the act only three hours. 

This was more than a mere reflection of the Democratic Party's gains from the election four months earlier.  There was a new psychology at work, an acknowlegement that something, anything must be done -- and done right then and there.  Yes there were substantial critics, vocal groups and editors who fought FDR every step as the commentors at Balloon Juice point out -- Father Caughlin and the Liberty League for example -- but no truely effective opposition on Capitol Hill at that point.

This was a stark reversal of the previous years' political battles.  In 1932, "The debates over the problem of meeting the hitherto unheard-of deficit in the Treasury by taxation became so wild and acrimonious that Congress had to be adjourned for tempes to cool and reason to reassert itself."  While electorally, we are now in the post-inauguration after-glow/honeymoon period -- the carnival and trade-show atmosphere at CPAC notwithstanding -- economically it's 1930, and hopefully we can steer a different course than Hoover.

In a way, we should point to the nonesense from Republicans like Boehner, Cantor, and, Jindal as a healthy sign.  If things were really as bad as they were when FDR took over, they would have already shut their yap.

Jindal Says Thx But No Thx 4 Unemployed

Louisiana's radical right wing agenda to nowhere. 

In all, Jindal turned away nearly $100 million in federal aid for his state’s unemployed residents. Further, as the National Employment Law Project projected on Febuary 13, EUC extension alone would have benefited 24,981 Louisiana residents. Jindal justified his decision by claiming that expanding unemployment benefits would result in tax increases for businesses.

As Oliver Willis Tweets, "Jindal is running for president or vice-president, so screw Louisiana!"

Ya'll got yer FEMA trailers, suck it up already.  It's Mardi Gras, time to Par-Tay! KTHXBAI

What Did You THINK 'United We Stand' Meant Anyway?

We're all in this together?  Shared sacrifice?  Rising tide floats all your boats ... or something?  Preposterous!

How dare Barack Obama suggest that we try to save ourselves by having those who are still on relatively sound financial footing throw a rope to the folks drowning in debt before they pull us all over the abyss.

When you come across an insane diatribe from a ridiculous meat puppet like Alan Keyes calling the President of the United States a "radical communist," the first instinct is to dismissively snicker at this strange little man and his ilk.  But put in context with the over-the-top screeds of someone like Rick Santelli touting virtues of the poor, down-trodden commodities traders being unfairly forced to buy their neighbor's homes so their own condo suite values don't bottom out makes it all clear -- Obama is Doctor Evil, hell bent on taking over the world.

Good enough for me.  I'm convinced.  I can't bear to think what the world would look like if the guys who make their living speculating that the price of bacon will out perform today's spot price on Light-Sweet Crude might have to play roulette or (gasp) the Lottery to equal the same bang-for-buck prospects they usually enjoy in what they refer to in all seriousness as "work."

In fact, Obama's no better than any other petty tyrant and dictator we've know throughout history, as bad if not worse than the man whose diabolical genius orchestrated his meteoric rise to power -- George W. Bush.

How else could a country as decadent as America elect a man whose polyglot ancestry bears not one hint of the elite aristocracy that the American peasantry recognizes as entitled to rule our Commercial Republic?  Why would the tribal fiefdoms of Hyannisport and Kennebunkport unite with Wall Street to allow someone, anyone who promised change to their entrenched hegemony come to power?  Inconceivable.

It must have been a Rovellian plot.  The sheer scale of the deception may never be known.  The level of plans within plans is hard to appreciate, tarnishing the brand of the entire conservative apparatus, destroying the entire world's economy, convincing  everyone on the planet that the Land of Liberty was hell bent on becoming an expansionist empire, allowing only the most two-dimensional buffoons to run in the GOP primaries  ... the mind boggles.

Only the folks who were able to pull off the most amazing illusions in modern history -- the Supreme Court appointment of the loser of the 2000 election to the White House AND the reelection of that same miserable failure in 2004, not to mention drumming up enough support for a war against a country that never had anything to do with attacking us -- could possibly have brought Barack The Imapler to power.

It's a plot I tell you, an evil Darwinian plot to redistribute our precious bodily fluids.... GAH!

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

GOP Destroying Jobs

Their own.

Top staffers at the Republican National Committee were told to submit their resignations today, with some being told they will not get their jobs back in what insiders call a top-to-bottom review of the entire organization.

State victory directors will be jobless after tomorrow, according to sources inside the RNC, while other staffers in the political and communications departments have been told they may be rehired.

The moves are the first major staffing decisions made under new RNC chairman Michael Steele. Steele ousted former chairman Robert "Mike" Duncan and outlasted four other candidates last Friday to capture the chairmanship.

Hey Mike, there's more of these guys than you want to know.  Good luck rooting them out and throwing them to the curb - Srsly.

Meet Florida’s state committeewoman Carol Carter, “a hard-working, loyal Republican for many years.” This loyal Republican, Carol Carter, forwarded a whimsical email to her loyal Republican colleagues around Tampa Bay about the very convenient ability of many black people to travel to Washington D.C. for Obama’s inauguration, despite the fact that many blacks drowned when Hurricane Katrina flooded New Orleans.

From: Carol Carter
Friday, January 30, 9:30 AM
Subject: FW: Amazing!

I’m confused

How can 2,000,000 blacks get into Washington, DC in 1 day in sub zero temps when 200,000 couldn’t get out of New Orleans in 85 degree temps with four days notice?

Carol Carter

HAHAHAHAHA. Get it?! Because black people are … lazy? They like cold weather? Jesus fucking christ.

Good luck Chairman Steele, I mean it. You got some house cleaning to do cuz this crap has no place in our political discourse.  May I suggest the, "Say it to my face, dickhead" approach.

What's A Wingnut To Do

Palin backs Obama's StimPak despite howls from Limbaugh and GOP Congress Critters united opposition.

I think this almost assures passage of the Stimulus Package despite filibuster threats and makes for interesting theater as Sarah and Rush vie for the hearts and minds of the Republican Party. New RNC Chair, Steele, already praised the House GOP for uniting against fixing the economy. I see a junior varsity version of Hillary vs. Barack when Palin and Steele inevitably lock horns. Good times.

By the way, Oliver, Pam ... lighten up.

With filibusters off the table, universal health care should be doable once Gregg accepts appointment to Commerce (and they finally swear in Franken), which will leave the Rump Republicans without their greatest obstruction tool. 60 votes by Spring! (Surely Gregg will vote against filibustering his own nomination.)

Oh yeah, Tom Daschle's bid for HHS is running into a snag due to tax problems. I know a lot of folks on the left are ready to hang Daschle out to dry, sick of millionaires not paying their fair share, but I'm a bit dumbfounded how one could be crucifying for not paying taxes on something you received for free. Free is free.

Yes, I guess the argument goes that he should have included the free use of a driver as personal income, but it's not like anyone sent him a 1099 form, did they. Someone paid this driver's salary, presumably paid his withholding and FICA, and paid for the car itself and probably wrote the thing off as a business expense or charitable gift or ... what? Wait, no? Wasn't a campaign contribution, right? If no one wrote it off, thenDaschle is supposed to pay taxes on something that was already taxed and paid by someone else. I call Shenanigans!

Geez, ya gotta marvel at the confiscatory nature of our tax system when accepting a free ride can cost you thousands, hundreds of thousands.

I think he could have fought this out with the IRS, but paid it instead to avoid any problems with his confirmation -- which of course in the Bizzaro World of Versailles on the Potomac had exactly the opposite effect.

But when Tom is confirmed, and in the collegial world of the US Senate where he's being sponsored by his old nemesis Bob Dole, he'll be confirmed -- which will give the wingnuts something to unite against for all the good it will do them.

Who The Hell Elected Rush Limbaugh

Over at C&L, John Amato quite reasonably observes,

When hasn't Rush Limbaugh been the face of the GOP? Why is it so hard for the media to admit this simple fact? Rush speaks for the GOP. He speaks many of the impolitic fusillados that they all believe in, but would never say out loud although during the past eight years we have heard some pretty sick things coming out of the House Republicans...

Legitimacy via democratic process has never been something conservatives concern themselves with when it inconveniently conflicts with their quest for power -- power for its own sake because they obviously have no interest in governing, solving problems, making life better for all of us.

When a duly elected member of Congress has to genuflect before Limbaugh lest he alienate his constituency, someone, somewhere ceded way too much influence to the drug-addled gasbag.  However, within a significant element of our society, Limbaugh's influence comes from something much more intrinsic to the psyche -- not elected as so many discredited politicians are, but selected by what many instinctively feel is the natural order of things. 

Rush has amassed considerable wealth, sits atop a wide-reaching network and has has the ear of millions who absorb his tortured world-view through osmosis even if his listeners by-and-large swear they don't agree with "everything" Rush spews from his golden microphone.  He's a First Amendment bully, but for his crowd might makes right.

He's an authority figure for a constituency made up primarily of those who pedantically defer to authority, any authority.  Conformists who cling to the thought that they are not alone as long as someone like Limbaugh is there thinking for them, making sense of a world they couldn't be bothered to understand. 

If you are the type who values wealth and power above all else, he's your guy.  However, if you have found alternate measures of self-fulfillment superior to the obsessive collection of material goods, I don't need to tell you what a disgusting embarrassment Rush Limbaugh is to the human race.

Post Obstruction GOP Retreat

Not that kind of retreat.  They're still offensive, er ... on the offensive. 

The House Republicans are "celebrating" their united, yet failed attempt to halt President Obama's stimulus plan at a posh Virginia resort.



Welcome to the fabulous Homestead in Hot Springs, Virginia, where the Republican leadership is gathering to plan their resurgence and enjoy the luxurious amenities like despicable despots of old.

Nothing says you're in tune with the Joe Six-pack than the Spa's Historic Journey Treatment:

This journey is filled with treatments that have been enjoyed since 1766: Swiss Shower, Jefferson Pool Salt Soak, Ginseng Body Wrap and 50-minute Swedish Massage.
130 minutes - $315

I dunno if I even want to know what a "Swiss Shower" is.  Does a quartet of yodelers douse you in Riccola-scented chocolate-flavored edelweiss water?  Think they'll throw in one of them there Passion Fruit Sugar Scrubs and the Pear Blossom Manicure and Pedicure if you offer a nice tip?

And what the hell is "The Cure" that comes with the $420 "Cascades" experience?  Let's just hope it will fix John Boehner's bronzing hue.

Quick update from a twittering hostage inside one of the meetings at this rather nice hotel:

Chuck Colson telling us that the financial
house of cards had to collapse because of the moral failure of
borrowing without responsibility.

Yep, nothing says you're on the right track than sipping 40 year-old scotch, listening to a Watergate conspirator lecture you on financial responsibility, and getting a lobbyist pay for your 50-minute Swedish massage all in one day.  Good Times. (HT: Roadkill Refugee's Tweets)

Today In MicroBlogging

Twitter has taken over as my primary information overload resource, but as (@jayrosen_nyu) Jay Rosen of PressThink said today,

"There is no such thing as information overload, there’s only filter failure."

, Catching my fancy, as it should yours, were these:

• Scary question, terrifying answer: they got nothin' to keep the Blue Dogs in line. http://is.gd/hCu3


• Only 1 case of Voter fraud found in OH despite effort 2 crucify ACORN - & they weren't involved w/self-confessed dbl voter http://is.gd/hBXG
  


• Reading: "WTF?" How do they keep straight face - lectures from the same asshats WHO DROVE US INTO THIS DITCH? ( http://tinyurl.com/deemzj )


• Check out "The $4000 handmade rattle - Boing Boing" (HT @kristanite) ( http://tinyurl.com/c9u4xd )


• @roadkillrefugee Obama also dropped the grammatically correct "Democratic" (dropping "ic") today. Hoping for a different result.

If you're someone who's read my blog over any length of time, you're sure to appreciate just what a challenge it is for me to complete a though in 140 characters or less.  (For example, the last sentence was 32 characters too long.)

We covered Dick Armey being a dick to Joan Walsh on Hardball, Jessica Alba proving Bill O'Reilly is a dick too, and of course, all things StimPak, wherein the GOP just doesn't get it.

As long as you avoid anything tagged with #TCOT (Top Conservatives On Twitter -- like my stalker Ken Blackwell) you'll be in little danger of brain hemorrage getting hip deep in the Twitterverse.  Unlike Mememorandum, you don't need any greasemonkey scripts or special flash add-ons to identify Teh Stupid on Twitter. 

ALL conservatives think they are a "Top."  So they wear that little hashtag (#) "tcot" which is easy to avoid.  Kinda like how you could tell the "okay" Germans on Hogan's Heros from the really evil Nazi types who always sported an swastika armband.  The uniform thingy is an authoritarian trait, see.

Its You-Tube, Not Can I Borrow YouR-Tube

They just don't get it.

At 12:38 p.m. this afternoon, the RNC attempted to post the Weekly Republican Address by Leader Boehner as a "video response" to President Obama's address on YouTube. More than six hours one day later, the GOP video response is still waiting to be "approved by" the President's Internet team.

Small wonder the lock-step authoritarians would go this route instead of building their own brand and starting their own YouTube Channel.

Any teenager with a cameraphone can (and does) respond to anything and everything put on the web, but these idiots want permission? They want the White House stamp of approval on their stupidity, a rant designed to undermine every move the President makes? Puhleeze.

Did Obama ask Bush for permission to post video responses on YouTube to Bush's weekly radio address? I think not. He just started doing it.

Losers.

UPDATE: You know, if the Vatican can start up their own YouTube channel, you'd think the RNC could do the same and post Boehner's little message for the malcontents there. Oh Wait! They did!

Wadda bunch of whiners.

Echo Chambers

So I'm thinking about the Press, appropriately as I read Professor Jay Rosen's PressThink: Audience Atomization Overcome: Why the Internet Weakens the Authority of the Press

In the past there was nowhere for this kind of sentiment to go. Now it collects, solidifies and expresses itself online. Bloggers tap into it to gain a following and serve demand. Journalists call this the “echo chamber,” which is their way of downgrading it as a reliable source. But what’s really happening is that the authority of the press to assume consensus, define deviance and set the terms for legitimate debate is weaker when people can connect horizontally around and about the news.

Two things tend to mitigate Teh Awsum of the web in shifting the spheres of acceptable versus unacceptable political discourse and what is considered consensus thinking, or "what is a fact?" amongst the Villagers.  It should surprise no one that both problems, in my humble view, lay firmly within the authoritarian echo chamber we call Reich Wing Blogistan.  The problems are closed minds operating within a closed system.

Nothing is more damaging to the ideals of a free exchange of thoughts than the plethora of conservative bloggers who routinely purge their comment ques (in the rare case a conservative blogger allows comments at all).  This results in a self-reinforcing feedback loop, coupled with a preponderance of authors and fans of these web pundits who display and alarming tendency to parrot the conservative party line, brooking no dissent as such apostasies are anathema to their authoritarian personalities.

I've seen some analysis of the linking behavior among the conservative blogosphere, and the degree to which it can be represented as a closed hierarchical system is not so much alarming as displaying a nascent institutionalization of a true barrier to open dialogues.  I don't think we should dismiss lightly the stubborn resistance to change displayed in conservative Blogistan as dooming their endeavors, even though, "Hand in hand with the lack of liberalism and tolerance goes the lack of openness, constructiveness, democratic spirit and humor."

See, they may be small in numbers -- the few, the prideful, the inconsequential ninnys of negativism -- but they aren't going anywhere, completely content to hang on to one another for the next two or three decades until something doesn't work out right -- so they can blame Teh Clenis once again.

Professor Robert Ackland concluded, "there are significant differences in the behaviour of liberal and conservative bloggers, with the latter forming more dense patterns of linkages. We find broad support for this conclusion, and empirically assess the implications of differences in conservative/liberal linking behaviour for the online visibility of different political messages or ideologies."

No doubt you've taken to heart the idea that elections have consequences, and rejoice in the fact that we won.  Unfortunately that doesn't mean we can afford to ignore the conservatives -- because those that remain are increasingly united and like a cornered animal, dangerous.  That which did not destroy them only makes them stronger.

Ignore them at your peril.  I for one will continue to enjoy the sport of mocking, debunking, ridiculing and exposing the bankrupt followers of conservatism for their hypocrisy and illogical inconsistencies.  What else would I write about, how cool it is that Mr. Cool lives in the White House?  Boring.  It's his job to fix things and make us proud.  Us folks in the trenches gotta keep getting our hands dirty.

Yep

Balloon Juice...

From now on, anything the Republicans say I am just going to have to assume is a lie, until proven otherwise.

What Will It Take To Rid Us Of Rush?

Rush Limbaugh is a preposterous windbag. This deaf, thrice divorced drug abusing racist exploits his profitable network to attack the very meaning of the word "united" in United States every single weekday. It's a 780 hour assault on the body politic every year.

Last year, he was advocating "blood in the streets" for the Democratic Party Conventionn as a result of his "operation chaos," the anti-democratic attempt to fix the primaries through cross-party voting. Now, after a grandiose convention and an inauguration attended by almost 2 million people with not a single arrest, here's his latest quest for the spotlight:

“I hope he fails.” — Rush Limbaugh

Does the Obama administration have to create a new office specifically to counter the zombie lies that froth forth from this almost treasonous malcontent? To be sure, he's not the only one, but he is their leader, their godfather, the pied piper of intolerance and stupidity, the head of the snake. He desires the President of the United States, his government and his nation fail. Just like that.

John Lennon implying that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus threatened to destroy the band. Limbaugh wishes the country's downfall -- and actively seeks to bring it about -- and he beats out Britany Spears getting a song censored (Okay, maybe not, but you get the idea.) But Rush and the Fab Four survived bad media moments and even gin up more notariety from it.

So what do you do? Condemn him as did the Cairman of the DCCC, Chris Van Hollen....

"Rush Limbaugh's reprehensible remark that he ‘hopes' President Obama fails to meet the extraordinary economic challenges Americas face has no place in the public discourse.

"Mr. Limbaugh's comments politicize the economic struggle of millions of hard working Americans. With the unemployment rate over seven percent, today's news that 62,000 more Americans filed for unemployment benefits last week, and millions of Americans struggling to keep their health care and homes, all Americans, regardless of their ideology, hope that President Obama succeeds in getting people back to work and turning our
economy around."

Or ignore him ...

Obama tells GOP: Don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh.:
You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done,” he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.

Oh yes he did!

Have we (me included) fallen right into one of the most savvy media manipulators schemes to somehow stay relevant in a world that has rejected his ilk's abuse of power? Shouldn't he simply be ignored. Can he be ignored? After all, isn't that exactly what President Obama advises?

He has become, now more than ever, the defacto head of the Republican Party -- at least it's most conservative (and controlling) wing. No elected Republican official dare stand in his way. For all the wrath he directs at Democrats, he could and would utterly destroy any member of the GOP who stood up to him -- because nothing threatens his existence more than rejection by his own kind, his people, his audience.

Here's how this "calculated outrage" works.

Meaning, it was spewed by a clown in the media circus to kick a familiar sequence into motion: angry denunciation by bloggers, pundits and supporters of President Obama (the “he” whose failure is hoped), followed by Rush Limbaugh refusing to retract a word, a courageous truth teller who will not be moved. And, trailing behind, like the folks with brooms trail the elephants in the circus parade, Limbaugh’s devotees, complaining that their hero has been misquoted, misunderstood, or otherwise mistreated. “What Rush meant was ... yadda yadda yadda.”

A calculated outrage.

And knowing this, knowing how frequently and adroitly media are manipulated by self-promoting media clowns who defame conservatism by calling themselves conservative, one is tempted to let the statement pass, to make its way unimpeded to the dustbin like so many other manufactured controversies. But occasionally, it’s necessary to intercept one of
them and hold it up to the light.

This is one of those times. Not because what Limbaugh said on his radio program a few days before the inauguration was an outrage — outrage is the point, remember? — but rather, because of what the thing he said says about him and his fellow clowns.

So yes, I guess we do hold a candle up to this particular outrage, to examine this man who has never accomplished anything but his own self aggrandizement -- a man who cannot claim to ever "get things done" for this nation. Seriously, just what has Rush Limbaugh ever done to make your life better? Anybody's life better? Just what has he ever done constructive?

Sadly I believe that Rush was being perfectly honest about his feelings. For all his jingoisticly faux patriotism over the years, he has betrayed his true nature in terms even his most foolhearty fans cannot mistake (misunderestimate?) as they lose their jobs by the hundreds of thousands.

He hopes the duly elected, undisputed leader of this nation ... fails.

He's not merely issuing a warning out of love for his nation, No. Failure is his desired result and he's working and longing for our President, our nation, us, to fail.

Nothing would give him more pleasure to win his silly game, because that really is all it is to him. A game. America flourishes under an Obama regime -- catastrophe for Limbaugh. We fall into a depression, or we lose more innocents to terrorists, bonus! At least as far as Limbaugh is concerned. Right now, Limbaugh is losing his game, and along with it his fame.

Obama's advice is spot on. Ultimately that is what we need to do, ignore him. Eliminate his destructive quest for more fame by making him irrelevant. But right now it's a good thing to highlight this particular outrage -- to illustrate why.

Obama: A Lefty, Get Used To It

President Obama insists on signing a series of executive orders with his left hand, much to the annoyance of conservative right-wing whack-jobs who just won't let it go.

We may not have Bush to kick around anymore, but there are still some gynormous A-holes that need to be culled from the herd, running around with neither direction or purpose.

Limbaugh led the way, and his disgusting display of ideologically driven and barly disguised racial hate must have shocked even die-hard ditto-heads. (Please tell me I'm right.) Hey Rush, I'm hoping YOU fail, dramatically.

Roy Edroso at the Village Voice documented the fist-clenching from several of the usual suspects in Right-Wing Blogistan. Malkinoid, the Corner, and the Red State Brigade were among the mouth-breathers gnashing their teeth as they watched a shining icon dash their dreams of the permanent GOP majority.

Gavin at SN! continues his journeyman's work of reading the likes of Ace of Spades, so you don't have to wonder if he went as "bugshit crazy" on inauguration day as he promised not to. (FAIL).

Pammy of course is the one who makes your head spin, not even trying to be sane.

The man is in office all of what, 48 hours? And what does he tackle? He unshackles the jihad, he closes Gitmo, freeing the worst America haters, jihadis and murderers in the jihad's war on the West. What does he tackle? Eliminating "torture" the most effective tool for extracting information. What's torture - sexual contact with female interrogators, sleep deprivation, waterboarding ........

And what does she expend the most effort (and embolded type font) fumigating about? The order to review the case of Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, bad guy to be sure, but who's never been to Gitmo (or court), and whose detention as an "unlawful combatant" in the Charleston S.C. brig while being treated like a dog when it would seem there are ample criminal charges to bring against him defies logic. However, logic was never Pam's strong suit -- not when there's outrage to be had against anyone who prays in the direction of Mecca (or at least would if someone would tell them where east is in his windowless cell).

As Gavin's buddy Tintin noted, Pammy has zero tolerance for anyone who isn't a Christian or Jew, not even non-believers.

Obama said: “We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus–and non-believers. Did he say non-believers? It has always been Christians and Jews (Pammie’s orange highlighting in original.)

So even if a guy was caught in the US, not an Afghan battlefield, and had enough phony credit card numbers on him and connections to terrorists that no jury anywhere would let him ever walk, we can't take any chances, right? Pammy thinks ist's just swell that he never gets a day in court -- just in case ... unless he repents and takes communion with a matza cracker I guess).

...Do unto others? ... Turn the other cheek? ... Much? Bitch?

Oh, Now George Will Discovers A Spine

I'm sure I'm not the only one to roll my eyes after reading George Will's hyposkreedical wankertude in the WaPost today. Only the overwhelming minority -- the die-hard's still approving of the lame-shoe-ducker -- could possibly buy Will's B.S. after scanning this P.O.S. column bitching about the imperial nature of the White House.

Imagine the gall of the executive branch, ignoring Congress and giving the detroit auto-makers even more cash than the lawmakers debated -- then turned down! Either Will is emerging as a world-class satirist, or he's absolutely clueless.

For decades, imperatives of wars hot and cold, and the sprawl of the regulatory state, have enlarged the executive branch at the expense of the legislative. For eight years, the Bush administration's "presidentialists" have aggressively wielded the concept of the "unitary executive" -- the theory that where the Constitution vests power in the executive, especially power over foreign affairs and war, the president is immune to legislative abridgements of his autonomy.

The administration has not, however, confined its aggrandizement of executive power to national security matters. According to former representative Mickey Edwards in his book "Reclaiming Conservatism," the president has issued "signing statements" designating 1,100 provisions of new laws -- more designations than have been made by all prior presidents combined -- that he did not consider binding on him or any other executive branch official.

Still, most of the administration's executive truculence has pertained to national security, where the case for broad prerogatives, although not as powerful as the administration supposes, is at least arguable. With the automakers, however, executive branch overreaching now extends to the essence of domestic policy -- spending -- and traduces a core constitutional principle, the separation of powers.

Where was Will, let alone his fellow Villagers, when Still PresNitWit Bush issued the 1,100 signing statements Will notes? Where was the outrage when Bush ignored treaty after treat, from the A.B.M to Geneva. Why does it make one whit of difference whether the President acts the part of imperial despot on the international arena or on purely domestic issues?

GeeZuz George, these guys have been ignoring the Constitution from day one.

And why, suddenly, after the Fourth Estate either sat blithely by as Vice President Cheney proclaimed himself "FourthBranch," or led the cheering for an illegal war, shrugged it's collective shoulders over domestic spying and approvingly kept that under wraps until after the criminals were safely reelected, tut-tutted torture, disapprovingly sighed over corruption permeating the government, and witnessed an American city drown -- why now should they be shocked that President Bush does whateverthehell he wants?

Now that Bush decided to prevent a second city from drowning, this time under debt and a crumbling manufacturing base, George Will is drawing a line in the sand. Feh! I don't recall the outraged OpEds will could have wrote demonizing Nancy Pelosi for taking impeachment "off the table." Where did I put that editorial he wrote calling for a War Crimes trial of Rumsfeld? I'm certain Will must have written something, somewhere, calling Bush, Cheney, Condi and Colin Powell a disgrace for their consistently inept and petulant foreign policy.

Did Will note the transformation of the Department of Labor into the Department of Union Busting? If his line is the domestic/foreign policy divide, why doesn't Will call for an indictment against Gonzales and John Yoo for approving the extension of wiretapping to ALL American citizens.

How on earth is this all Congress's fault, yet members of Will's private club -- the above-it-all punditocracy -- get a pass? Maybe Will has decided to become a vertebrate for a while himself, at least so long as a Democrat lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

How To Rid The GOP Of Their Culture Of Corruption

Unionize Prostitutes!

On Vitter: "He'd rather pay a prostitute than pay auto workers."