The GOP Primary, Part II

Will get a bunch of votes, but not enough: Mike Huckabee

Huckabee draws two kinds of voters - 1) Christians who believe that religion should be the primary factor in decision-making for politicians and 2) people who want a candidate who seems honest and not corrupt. The former group couldn't get him the nomination, the second could, but it's not likely. Huckabee has plenty of views that diverge radically from mine (not the least of which is his embracing of creationism and hence a rejection of science, which, religious matters aside, is terribly dangerous for the future of our country - we'll be getting out of 8 years of anti-science, we certainly don't need more), but political and religious views aside, he's far less worrisome to me than either Giuliani or Romney. Huckabee has more reasonable views on immigration and torture, and appears to be a decent person who wouldn't sell the country out for greed and hate. On the other hand, the US is not a Christian nation, and I don't want religion to be a driving force in our government (are there any examples where that works out well). Now, I'm not voting in the GOP primary anyway, so my opinion doesn't matter, but while Huckabee is attracting a significant amount of interest in the polls, there is a core of racist, vulgar, hateful GOP voters who don't like Huckabee much. He's too (in the words of a prominent righty blogger) "moralistic." In the end, that's going to throw votes to one of the two other major candidates, either of whom will stand up and tout their desires to kill the brown people in order to get votes.

That whistling sound you hear is a former New York mayor's chances plummeting to Bolivia: Rudy Giuliani

Of all the candidates running this year, Rudy scares me the most. He's got the same arrogance that the Chimp does, and combines that with an attitude that says "Look out world - if you thought Bush was a single-minded hateful fucker, you ain't seen nothin' yet!" Man, that's desirable in a President. Giuliani is corrupt, brash, and willing to lie through his teeth about his record (more liberal than the Republican base would like because he had to be a mayor of a city like New York) to get elected. A former federal prosecutor who looks at the rest of the world like criminals who, thankfully, aren't protected by something as trivial as the Constitution. Rudy's poll numbers are beginning to look quite ugly because, while the GOP voters seem quite willing to brush aside any number of "youthful indiscretions," they're not as comfortable with a man using the police and the city budget to allow him to cheat on his wife, regardless of what the pundits say.

Will somehow sneak out of the fray with the nomination: Mitt Romney

Can you believe that millions of people are willing to cast votes for a guy named Mitt? Me neither. But it's going to happen, and not because Mitt is a particularly good candidate, but because he's rich, "looks presidential," and because of the flaws of the other candidates. There's been a lot of talk about Mitt being a Mormon, but that's not going to get play in the end, as voters watch Rudy self-immolate and don't find enough in Huckabee's candidacy to vote for. Romney will say anything to anyone in order to get votes, and enough of the people who consistently vote against their own self-interest to reelect Republicans who will ruin their lives will ignore the contradictions and vote Mitt.

Coming soon, the Democrats.

Headlines

On CNN.com:

"Bush to Congress: Fund the wars now"


Ummm, no.

2,000!

Well, we've arrived at the two-thousandth post here at The Thinker (well, technically that includes some drafts that may or not be published, but by the time anyone goes back and reads all 1989 actually published posts, we'll be well ahead anyway, so I don't care). At least six or eight of them have had substantive content, and thanks to those of you who've stuck with us through the rest of the tripe that we've posted.

On that note, and since the Iowa caucus is only one month away, I'll dip my toe into the acidic froth that is the primary season. Try to ignore the screams.

This has been a particularly long and complex primary season, in part because this is the first presidential election since 1952 that neither a sitting president nor vice-president is running, giving two completely open primaries, and in part because I think it started back in 1952, before some of the candidates were even born. I'll deal with the Democrats in another post, but here let me skewer, err, discuss the GOP.

For some reason, there are still nine people running for the GOP nomination. Well, technically there's 9, because Alan Keyes is once again pretending to run. Since we established in 2004 that Keyes represents the lowest percentage of voters that will vote entirely on party identification, rather than on any qualifications of any sort, we'll just ignore him and discuss people who have a chance to finish above the Keyes line.

Part I - people who won't get the nomination

Not a freakin' chance in hell: Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter

No one even knows who these guys are. Tancredo is the biggest isolationist this side of Pat Buchanan, and wants to nuke Mecca, which will sell well with some rednecks, but no one outside that core GOP base cares at all about him. Duncan Hunter is from California. That's about all I've managed to learn about him, except that we need to fight everyone around the world who doesn't love us all the time.

There's a buzz, but still no chance: Ron Paul

Every good Republican primary should have a token Libertarian, if only to remind us of the dangers of the Grover Norquists of the world. Paul is against the Iraq war, which is a plus, but he's also against a useful government, which is not. He's probably getting more play from independents than the GOP base, who still loves the Chimp and how much we're kicking the world's ass.

Should have stayed out of the race: Fred Thompson

The oldest phenom ever, Thompson combines the hip, with-it attitude of Bob Dole with the drawing power of Spinal Tap after Nigel Tufnel left (temporarily). His polling numbers are falling, and with the writer's strike, he won't even have Law and Order to go back to.

Shouldn't have sold his soul: John McCain

Does anyone remember the McCain of 2000, playing the rational counterpart to the Chimp, before Karl Rove's underhanded campaigning techniques and the GOP machine run by the Bush Emprie and their Nazi dollars destroyed him? That McCain probably would be the front-runner with ease now, what with his unquestionable bravery in Vietnam and his centrism that appealed to many independents (and some Democrats). Of course, that McCain is gone, replaced by a man so desperate for the presidency that he gave up any pretense of independence and tried to suck up to the most extreme interest groups on the right (Bob Jones University, anybody?). Not surprisingly, voters have seen through this, although McCain does still earn points (from me, anyway) for his opposition to torture (given his obvious knowledge of the subject, it's funny to watch some of the other candidates act like he's just weak and foolish and that they're really the tough guys) and his somewhat balanced stand on immigration (which also pisses off the base, since it's not loaded with racism).

Part II: The actual candidates: Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee (coming soon)

Letting the pictures tell the story

Hell just grew by one

For those of you who believe in such things, Jerry Falwell has a new playmate in the hypocrisy wing of hell...

Henry Hyde is now spending eternity explaining why it's okay to scream about other people's problems while doing the exact same thing.

Trent Lott to Leave Senate

You don't think this has ANYTHING to do with the new ethics rules that would delay his boarding the lobbyist gravy train, do you?

Actually, he just wants to spend time working with his favorite civic organization:

Supreme Court to Hear Gun Case

So the Supreme Court has finally granted cert in a gun case. They are going to review the Parker decision from DC which was the first federal appeals court to find a private right of ownership in the 2nd Amendment (a 5th Circuit case had expressed similar sentiments, but that was dicta, i.e., not binding precedent).

The historical origins of the 2nd Amendment are not conclusive on this question, but it is a logical leap to an individual right. Firearms in a pre-Industrial Revolution America were made by hand by skilled craftsmen and were quite expensive. While small ironworks existed in the colonies, British mercantile policies prohibited large-scale manufacturing and iron production, increasing costs of finished products.

For example, individual rights advocates fondly quote Patrick Henry with well-placed ellipses, as he states "the great object is that every man be armed...every one who is able may have a gun." Unfortunately, the excised portion reveals that Henry, arguing AGAINST constitutional ratification, is referring to the STATE purchasing weapons for militia use: "The great object is that every man be armed.--but can the people to afford to pay for double sets of arms? Every one who is able may have a gun. But have we not learned by experience, that necessary as it is to have arms, and though our assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavored to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case. When this power is given up to Congress without limitation or bounds, how will your militia be armed?"

The description of the "Magazine" at colonial Williamsburg states that "The night of April 20, 1775, Lieutenant Henry Collins stole toward the capital with a squad of royal marines from the H.M.S. Magdalen anchored in Burwell's Bay on the James River. Their orders, straight from Governor Dunmore, were to empty the arsenal and disable THE MUSKETS stored there. In 1715, the magazine "safeguarded shot, powder, flints, tents, tools, swords, pikes, canteens, cooking utensils, and as many as 3,000 Brown Bess flintlocks--equipment needed for defense against Indians, slave revolts, local riots, and pirate raids."

The Articles of Confederation, the predecessor to the constitution, provided that "every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of [field] pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage." If the NRA myth of an armed America in its infancy is true, why did arms need to be provided and stored in public? The articles are clearly referring to personal arms, as they separately mention field pieces. Why are the accounts of the Revolution replete with Continental soldiers lacking muskets?

There is no doubt that in republican (small "r") revolutionary ideology that there was a mistrust of the European experience and standing peacetime armies. That hostility is found in the Articles, with their reliance on the militia. It is apparent, though, that that mistrust has faded into practicality by the time constitution-making rolled around. Congress is authorized to raise armies and navies, and control of the militias is placed within the federal government. The one concession to revolutionary ideology was the provision that "no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years." This restriction applies only to the army, not the navy, because armies were the instruments of mischief [Note to congressional Democrats, the framers INTENDED for you to cut the money if the president was an idiot.]

The 2nd Amendment, therefore, was obsolete before ratification. It was a bone tossed to the anti-Federalists about preserving their precious militias after the federalist vision of a central government backed by a regular army became firmly entrenched. The militia in post-revolutionary America was never a significant factor.

Two issues often brought up by the individual rights crowd are 1) the Federalist Papers and other literature of the period and 2) arms as a check on tyranny. Both can be easily dispensed with.

The Federalist Papers were essays in support of a constitution that included no 2nd Amendment language. Madison's version of the text clearly referred to militia purpose, and Hamilton thought a Bill of Rights was dangerous. In terms of a check on tyranny--the constitution clearly defines treason, and allows for that very militia to suppress such criminality. Remember also that the constitution was drafted by and for aristocrats. It contains no right to vote, think the propertied actually envisioned mobs of armed rabble about the countryside?

So in this case--I would love to know who voted to hear it. It takes four justices to hear a case (legal term, to grant certiorari) Is it our new conservative group, wanting to take a stand, or the liberal 4 thinking that they can now kill this? And what kind of opinion will they craft? Once again, it comes down to Justice Kennedy, it will be interesting!

Good riddance

From CNN.com's "The Ticker": An aide to Hastert said Thursday he will retire by the end of December.

Unconfirmed reports have suggested that Denny Boy will need to undergo reconstructive surgery to remove a rubber stamp which had grown into the flesh of his right hand.

Aren't we missing the forest here?

The Supreme Court is hearing a somewhat controversial death penalty case, but to me this seems to present the classic example of missing the massive forest because of a particularly gruesome tree.

[Disclaimer: I have always been somewhat intellectually squishy on the death penalty, but I have been able to deal with (weasel out) of my moral conundrum on practical grounds because of the manifestly unfair way the punishment is administered and the frightening likelihood of killing the innocent]

The court will decide, not whether the taking of a human life is a constitutionally appropriate punishment, but on whether the particular execution protocol used by most states is violative of the cruel or unusual punishment prohibition.

I understand the argument, that the current cocktail can cause intense pain while the paralytic agents prevent the dying (wo)man from crying out or otherwise signaling distress, but is this the constitutional question that we should address? Are those six minutes from the two nods, the initial one from the warden and the final one from the doctor, truly present the constitutional issue? This court has framed the question not as "should we kill," but rather as "hey, is there a more efficient way to kill?" The court's decision will not determine how we deal with the fundamental questions of life, death, and justice. Rather, it will either return the executioners to their gruesome work or send the chemists scurrying to their labs and the lawyers to their libraries to ensure that the killing protocol becomes a much more effective process.

Isn't it apparent that we really want state killing to be more comfortable for us, not the condemned?

Meanwhile. back in Arkansas...

Slaughterhouse live: Teacher kills raccoon
Educator shoots animal with nail gun to use it for skinning demonstration

(more)

Sacrifice and Vanity

The president pulled out his "they shall not have died in vain" line again.

I'm sorry, that is just grossly inappropriate.

When Lincoln said it, the fate of the United States as a nation was very much in doubt. Lincoln quite reasonably committed the nation to defend itself from its internal enemy, not only because it was the right thing to do but also because it was his constitutional duty to do. To have done otherwise would have dishonored those who had already fallen for a clearly-defined and noble ideal.

But George W. Bush? He does not invoke a sacred duty but rather a wanton bloodlust, to commenorate those who have died by sacrificing more who will also die. And for what? So that a nation might live, as Lincoln said? So that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth? No, they are being sent to die for a vainglorious fool's delusions in a conflict that mocks the very nature of what the nation seen by Lincoln should be.

Mr. President, there can only be one way that their sacrifices will not be in vain, and that is for you, or others if necessary, to finally have the basic human decency to say that enough is enough. Enough blood, death. shattered bodies and shattered limbs, lost treasure and lost honor. Enough is indeed enough.

Maybe you had to be there

On tonight's episode of Family Guy, Stewie had declared himself president of the world, and was residing in the Oval Office. His mom paid him a visit to kill him, and as she was shooting up the room, the "camera" passed by portraits of recent presidents. After sweeping past W, she returned and emptied the clip into his portrait, obliterating him from the wall.

I'm just sayin'...

A picture speaks a thousand words

So here's a few thousand to cap off my football Saturday:

It's that time of year again...

The 114th Edition

GO TIGERS!

Your New AG

Glenn Greenwald, among others, asks why the Democrats didn't filibuster the nomination of Michael Mukasey for Attorney General last night. After all, there were 40 no votes, plus the potentiality of 4 more from the presidential candidates who didn't vote, but likely would have shown up for a political appearance.

It's pretty simple, of course - there's no way the filibuster would have worked. Once Schumer and Feinstein provided cover, I can flat-out guarantee you that at least a handful of the more pathetic Democrats who voted no only because they knew it wouldn't matter would not have supported the filibuster. It would have lost, and if there's one thing the Democrats don't do, it's take a principled stand, even when they know they'd lose. Maybe the vote would have been 65-35 for cloture, and then he would have been approved anyway. But would it really kill Reid and the other wimps running Congress to take a stand and show us that they care, some of them anyway?

What I think, but do not say

This morning, someone at work sent an email to everyone on campus wishing a happy 232rd birthday to the Marine Corps. Of course, that spawned all sorts of responses, and now we're in the middle of an orgy of God Bless America and random patriotic BS. This is what I would send back, but I don't need the fights.

I've never really been sure what people mean when they say things like "I support the troops." Do you, do you really? Or do you root for them to win, because America is Great? Do you lobby on their behalf with Congress? If you could, would you sign up for the military, so that you could literally have their backs? And, most importantly, do you honor their sacrifices so much that you embrace this simple little thought - that we should never, ever, send people off to die unless we absolutely have to?

Every day that we keep fighting over in Iraq, it hurts just a little bit more. The truth is, and those of us who were paying attention knew this in 2002, despite the hoopla on CNN and Fox and in Washington, there was no justification for sending a single soldier into Iraq. Our country started a war based on lies and greed, and every day that fighting goes on just exacerbates the crime.

Sunday is Veterans Day. In honor of that day, let's all *really* support the troops. Bring them home.

This is what I would say, but I won't.

Fortune Cookie Wisdom

Lunch yesterday:

"Human Rights: Know them, demand them, defend them."

Had enough of Giuliani?

He hangs with the mobbed up, has the morals of an alley cat, the personality of a thug, lies about 9-11 and, of course, as Daffy said:

This is the last time I work with someone with a s-s-speech impediment!

And now he has Pat Robertson's support.

That's it, I'm retiring

“If you learned it in a college classroom, we can’t trust it.”
Rush Limbaugh, Nov. 5, 2007 (while attacking an 18 year old Inuit girl who cried during her testimony in front of Congress about how global warming is affecting her homeland and her people)

The Presidential Medal of Freedom

We now have a new category of those who qualify for this award. It has previously been given to the incompetent (Paul Bremer, Rummy), the shameless careerist (Tommy Franks)and the certifiably insane (Norman Podhoretz). Chalk up a win now, though, for the morally bankrupt:



Congrats. We're so proud.

Update.2

In case you're counting:

Days until the 2008 Illinois Primary (February 5) -- 92

Days until Election Day 2008 (November 4) -- 365

Days until Inauguration Day 2009 (January 20) -- 442

The Bush presidency will, barring an unexpected end, last 2923 days (1/20/2001 - 1/20/2009). We have survived 84.88%. Will we survive the last 15.12%? Stay tuned to this space for details.

From the "Gee, ya think?" File

Poll Finds Americans Pessimistic, Want Change
War, Economy, Politics Sour Views of Nation's Direction

By Dan Balz and Jon Cohen
Washington Post Staff Writers

One year out from the 2008 election, Americans are deeply pessimistic and eager for a change in direction from the agenda and priorities of President Bush, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Concern about the economy, the war in Iraq and growing dissatisfaction with the political environment in Washington all contribute to the lowest public assessment of the direction of the country in more than a decade. Just 24 percent think the nation is on the right track, and three-quarters said they want the next president to chart a course that is different than that pursued by Bush.

Overwhelmingly, Democrats want a new direction, but so do three-quarters of independents and even half of Republicans. Sixty percent of all Americans said they feel strongly that such a change is needed after two terms of the Bush presidency. Dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq remains a primary drag on public opinion, and Americans are increasingly downcast about the state of the economy. More than six in 10 called the war not worth fighting, and nearly two-thirds gave the national economy negative marks. The outlook going forward is also bleak: About seven in 10 see a recession as likely over the next year.

Will this presidency EVER end? Will January 2009 (Good God, that just sounds so distant!) ever get here, or perhaps more importantly, get here in time?

Karen Hughes to leave State Department

Long-time Bush confidante Karen Hughes (below)



will be leaving the State Department soon to return to Texas. I think we can all agree she has done a bang-up job of improving our image in the Arab world.

It's the new math

In an AP article about Pat Leahy saying he'd vote against the confirmation of Michael Mukasey for AG (causing the pre-adolescent we've got in the Oval Office to threaten to take his government and go home):

Leahy became the firth of the panel's 10 Democrats so far to say they will not support him.

The Firth of Forth?

I'm not sure how to interpret this

CNN.com has an article about inflation, and how it affects investments. In the article, they have a little graphic comparing the cost of things in 1972 to the cost today and what the cost would be today, adjusted for inflation. If today's cost is less than the inflation-adjusted cost, it's a good value, if it's more, it's a bad value. One of the comparisons they make is Presidential salaries:

Richard Nixon's salary in 1972: $200,000
George W. Bush's salary in 2007: $400,000
Nixon's salary, adjusted for inflation: $996,645.94

So W is a good value relative to Nixon? Is that a good thing? I'm confused.

Sing-a-long Thursday

From USAToday

Some things in life are bad,
They can really make you mad.
Other things just make you swear and curse.
When you're chewing on life's gristle,
Don't grumble, give a wistle!
And this'll help things turn out for the best...
And...

...always look on the bright side of life!
(whistle)

Always look on the bright side of life...
If life seems jolly rotten,
There's something you've forgotten!
And that's to laugh and smile and dance and sing,

When you're feeling in the dumps,
Don't be silly chumps,
Just purse your lips and whistle -- that's the thing!
And... always look on the bright side of life...

(whistle)
Come on!

(other start to join in)
Always look on the bright side of life...
(whistle)

For life is quite absurd,
And death's the final word.
You must always face the curtain with a bow!
Forget about your sin -- give the audience a grin,
Enjoy it -- it's the last chance anyhow!

So always look on the bright side of death!
Just before you draw your terminal breath.
Life's a piece of shit,
When you look at it.

Life's a laugh and death's a joke, it's true,
You'll see it's all a show,
Keep 'em laughing as you go.
Just remember that the last laugh is on you!

And always look on the bright side of life
(whistle)
Always look on the bright side of life
(whistle)

There are places I remember...

My home town here...

and where I went to college here.

Now you know why I'm the way I am.

I wish I had a University of Florida education...

Channing Crowder of the Miami Dolphins, playing an NFL game in Merry Olde England:

I couldn't find London on a map if they didn't have the names of the countries. I swear to God. I don't know what nothing is. I know Italy looks like a boot. I learned that. I know London Fletcher. We did a football camp together. So I know him. That's the closest thing I know to London. He's black, so I'm sure he's not from London. I'm sure that's a coincidental name.

He was also surprised they spoke English. I would also suggest that he visit Brixton concerning the statements at the end there.

Well, that's good to know

I'd heard White House Spokesliar Dana Perino's blather the other day about how there were "benefits" to climate change, but I wasn't sure what she meant by it.

She clarified:
Q: And one more. You mentioned that there are health benefits to climate change. Could you describe some of those?

MS. PERINO: Sure. In some cases, there are -- look, this is an issue where I'm sure lots of people would love to ridicule me when I say this, but it is true that many people die from cold-related deaths every winter. And there are studies that say that climate change in certain areas of the world would help those individuals.

First of all, we don't really need studies to tell us that if it got warmer, it would be less cold, right? Secondly, go jump in a woodchipper.

Some good news

Ryan loses appeal, looks to Supreme Court
By Michael Higgins and Jeff Coen
Tribune staff reporters
2:57 PM CDT, October 25, 2007

Former Gov. George Ryan will ask to remain free while he appeals his corruption and fraud convictions to the U.S. Supreme Court, which now is "the end of the line," his lead attorney said this afternoon. Jim Thompson, himself a former governor of Illinois, made the announcement at a news conference held hours after the full U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decided not to overturn Ryan's convictions."[On Friday] we will file a motion with the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals asking that Governor Ryan's bail be extended to allow him to remain free while we ask the Supreme Court of the United States to review this case," Thompson said."If they agree to hear our appeal, that will be the next step, making an oral argument," Thompson said. "If the Supreme Court does not hear our appeal, that will be the end of the line, and Governor Ryan will have to report to his designated facility."Thompson said Ryan will stipulate to a reporting date of Nov. 7. If the appeal for bail extension is not decided by that time, Ryan will report to prison and await a decision from there, he said.

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decided this morning not to review the work of a three-judge panel that voted 2-1 to uphold Ryan's convictions despite a series of juror controversies at the end of his historic six-month trial last year.A majority of the nine judges who took up the matter issued a one-paragraph denial of the Aug. 28 motion without comment."A vote on whether to grant rehearing en banc was requested, and a majority of the judges in regular active service have voted to deny the petition," the order stated.

[Editor's note: from a legal standpoint, he's toast. ]

Tribune Publishes Anti-Science Commentary

News flash--frequent Chicago Tribune contributor Dennis Byrne is an idiot (and the sun rises in the east.)

While I enjoy knocking his teeny intellectual legs out from beneath him, I never complain to/about the paper for printing his ridiculous op eds. This one, however, completely crosses that line, dragging out the tired old breast cancer-abortion link canard. He whines that "a new study reported that abortion is an important breast cancer risk factor, yet I couldn't find a word describing the research in mainstream media."

I wonder why that may be? Why didn't anyone mention this "study" by "Patrick Carroll?" One simple reason--this "study" is a joke. Mr. Carroll of course has no medical training and this is not a medical study. He claims to have a master's degree but his credentials cannot be verified, and his statistical methodology is certainly suspect. His "group," of which he appears to be the only member\employee\whatever, the impressive-sounding Research Pension and Population Research Institute has no Web site, and seems to do nothing else except on rare occasion produce research for whomever pays him. Naturally, this "study" was indeed commissioned by activist anti-abortion organizations.

The "journal" in which it appeared is even more comical, the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. They clearly are a political organ, not a scientific journal. How many science journals publish pieces arguing the earth is 6000 years old? How many publish (glowing) book reviews of pap books by Michael Savage and Ann Coulter? What about articles by various Schlaflys and the medical ethics of Ayn Rand?

This piece was an embarrassment to the Chicago Tribune and journalism.

Strategy change

During the Cold War, we built up our military on the theory that the Soviets would never attack us, because they knew we could blow them to smithereens. Now, we invaded Iraq and Shooter and the Chimp are beating the drums for an invasion of Iran because of threats that they might attack us. With the Russians, we had the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction, but does anyone really think that Saddam was and Ahmadinejad is stupid enough to not realize that a real attack by their country on ours would result not in mutual destruction, just the squishing of their country like a bug? Iran's not going to attack us, because they know they'll lose.

I know that logic is irrelevant when chatting with the wingnuts, but I can't help myself sometimes.

Nice work, Mr. Lieutenant Governor

California Lt. Governor Garamendi. on Hardball:

I have got some doubt about the value of President Bush coming out here.
That—you know, how many times did he go to New York—to New Orleans, and still made promises, but hasn’t delivered? We have the Terminator out here, Governor Schwarzenegger, who is doing a good job. And we will see.

MATTHEWS: Do you think it’s public relations, rather than action?

GARAMENDI: Of course it’s public relations. The action is taking place by the hardworking firefighters, the men and women, the police that are out there on the line, and the community that’s pulling together to support each other. That’s where the action is taking place. And I know—OK, President Bush comes out. We will be polite. But, frankly, that’s not the solution. How about sending our National Guard back from Iraq, so that we have those people available here to help us? ...

MATTHEWS: Do you think the president’s arrival will distract from the efforts to fight the fire?

GARAMENDI: Absolutely, no doubt about it. The president goes someplace, you have got a huge entourage. You have got Secret Service all over the place and all the chaos that comes with whatever the president arrives, wherever the president happens to arrive. But, listen, what we really need are those firefighters. We need the equipment. We need—frankly, we need our troops back from Iraq. We will get on here. Whether he comes or not, that’s not really—really the issue. I just hope that, if he does come, he brings more than he brought to New Orleans.

Grotesquely politically incorrect, but

it is official, from the Saudi embassy, and in my mood, I found it amusing. Take a look.

Response from Durbin

Canned, of course. You'll notice that it doesn't address the key point, although I suspect that his is not one of the votes we have to worry too much about:

Dear Dr. and Mrs. drmagoo:

Thank you for your message regarding the surveillance of American
citizens by the National Security Agency (NSA). I appreciate hearing
from you on this important issue and share your concerns.

Protecting both the security and the freedom of the American people is
among my highest priorities. I share an obligation with my fellow
senators to ensure that the federal government protects and defends the
people of the United States while preserving the civil liberties that
have helped make the United States the greatest and most enduring
democracy in the world.

President Bush has stated that he authorized the NSA to conduct
warrantless electronic surveillance of communications made by American
citizens living within the United States. At the time of the
President's authorization, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
(FISA) required the government to seek a warrant from a special court in
order to conduct electronic surveillance of communications between
American citizens and anyone outside the country. The NSA did not
obtain approval from the FISA court or from any other court before
initiating its domestic surveillance program.

For most of its existence, the NSA's program has operated without
meaningful oversight. Few members of Congress were briefed about the
program until its existence was revealed by the media, and those members
were sworn to secrecy. The majority of the members of Congress still
have not been fully briefed about the program's operational details.
The Administration has also shut down its own Department of Justice
internal investigation into the NSA's program. In essence, the
Administration has attempted to operate this program without any
supervision or oversight. The lack of a mechanism for correcting
potential abuses in the program undermines our Constitutional system of
checks and balances and raises serious concerns about the possibility of
excessive intrusion.

In addition to the disclosure of the NSA's domestic wiretapping program,
it has been alleged that the NSA has undertaken a massive effort to
gather the telephone records of tens of millions of innocent Americans
into a searchable database. Again, this program has been conducted
without court approval or Congressional oversight.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has issued subpoenas to the Justice
Department, the White House, the Office of the Vice President, and the
National Security Council for documents relating to the legal
justification for the NSA's warrantless surveillance program. Although
Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the chairman of the committee, has
extended the deadline for subpoena compliance on two separate occasions,
the Administration has failed to comply.

Congress has tried to work with Administration officials to update FISA
in light of technological advances in communications. Too often,
however, the Administration has taken advantage of the program's secrecy
in its negotiations with Congress. In August 2007, the Administration
proposed a bill to amend FISA. I believe the bill provided too much
opportunity for excessive intrusion and potential abuse by the NSA and
other intelligence officials. I voted against the measure, as did
Chairman Leahy and the Intelligence Committee Chairman, Senator Jay
Rockefeller of West Virginia. Nonetheless, Congress passed the bill and
the President signed it into law. Fortunately, the law will expire six
months after the date it was signed.

When the President and his Administration order actions such as the
surveillance of American citizens, these actions must be conducted in a
manner consistent with the rule of law and the Constitution's commitment
to civil liberties. I am deeply concerned about the manner in which the
Executive Branch has initiated and conducted the NSA surveillance
programs.

I will continue to work to ensure that government surveillance of
American citizens is conducted in a manner consistent with the
Constitution, the rule of law, and our security needs.

Thank you again for sharing your views on this issue with me.


Sincerely,


Richard J. Durbin
United States Senator

RJD/tf

P.S. If you are ever visiting Washington, please feel free to join
Senator Obama and me at our weekly constituent coffee. When the Senate
is in session, we provide coffee and donuts every Thursday at 8:30 a.m.
as we hear what is on the minds of Illinoisans and respond to your
questions. We would welcome your participation. Please call my D.C.
office for more details.

Simple Answers

"Bush to ask Congress for $46 billion more in war funding"

The answer, Congress, is "No."

It doesn't matter if he's asking for a quarter because that new gumball machine at the Wal-Mart sends the gumball through a cool maze, and the look of pure joy on his learning-disabled sociopathic chimpanzee face is oh-so-cute. The answer today, tomorrow, and for all time whenever he asks you for money, is "No."

Separated at Birth, Redux

A simple question

Our 9 year old niece is visiting for the weekend, and she's writing in a little Alice in Wonderland journal she has.

"Dear P. Bush,

Why must there be wars?"

Well?

They write letters

Senator Durbin,

We write to you in your role as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The committee will have (as we understand it) an important role in putting forth a bill to extend the role of the FISA court. While it is necessary to do everything within the Constitution to seek out those from outside the United States who wish to do harm, we must stand vigilant against those within our own country who will, if given their wishes, will wreak more harm on us than any terrorist attack ever could. There is absolutely no need to grant massive corporations immunity for actions they may have taken in the name of security. If what they did was Constitutional, they have nothing to fear. If they violated the 4th Amendment and let the Bush Administration scare them into ignoring one of our most fundamental civil rights, well then, there should be a price paid for that. You have often stood strong against this administration's attacks on the American people and what makes us strong, and this is a time when you must do it again. A very small number of your fellow Senators have spoken out against this bill, and we fully expect you to join them in preventing this from happening. The only way we will ever reclaim our country from those who falsely proclaim they love it, only to do everything they can to tear the Constitution to shreds, is to stand and fight when necessary. It's necessary now. You will not bear a political price - your reelection is all but assured. But you would bear a personal price for failing to act, knowing that it was one more step in the destruction of our nation.

I left my heart...

I walked out into a chilly fog-shrouded darkness that was two hours from dawn. The streetlights, theater marquees and illuminated signs for everything from jewelers to massage parlors cast a barely useful light on the surreal scene. Through the mist your eyes can only make out distant shapes and motion. As you draw near, though, you realize that to many observers, these figures are nothing but shapes and motion, rather than people. They are our phantoms, our shadow citizens, they are the homeless.

I was in San Francisco last week, a city that in recent years has had a large homeless population. With a climate that, while tempermental, is no Chicago, and a tolerant population and government, the homeless have long provided a good dose of local color. I hadn't been to the Bay Area in two years, and I must admit, I was shocked. I was not alone in my reaction to what was happening in the city, as the "homeless crisis" was the front page story in the San Francisco Chronicle for a couple of days running. Navigating around between Union Square and Market Street is difficult, encounters with the growing population of street people are becoming more contentious, and the streets smell of urine and marked with human waste.

Homelessness presents questions on many levels. Obviously you have the sociological and psychological questions of how and why. In the classic "hierarchy of needs," food and shelter form the base of human existence, while concerns for security make up the next level. followed by friendship and kinship, then self-esteem and respect. Could any group of human beings possibly be further from the ideal of 'self-actualization" than these wanderers, who cannot even regularly meet their most primitive needs. How did they find themselves in this position, and are there rational ways of helping them? Social services are generally rejected and shelters shunned, as they prefer their meager possessions and the locations they know, in an often self-defeating attempt to exercise some degree of control over their lives.

And from the city standpoint, what approach should you take? In San Francisco, the current approach is to offer services but generally they are left alone as long as they are not disorderly. For those that urinate in public or otherwise cross the tolerance line, the city reacts in almost absurd fashion. They issue citations. That's right, they give tickets and impose fines on the homeless.

I would appreciate your thoughts. What should our cities, and indeed, our societies, do both for them and to them?

Separated at birth?

At least Chamberlain had a bit of an excuse for his appeasement. Not much of one, granted, but he knew that Britain was in no shape militarily to confront Germany, and at least he bought some time. Pelosi? There are no excuses, yet she proudly waves her own Munich pact.

Appeasers all.

Love Child

If

and

were to mate, the resultant love child would be

If only Sen. Tappy McWidestance was Catholic...

We'd have his father confessor:

VATICAN CITY (AP) -- A Vatican official suspended after being caught on hidden camera making advances to a young man said in an interview published Sunday that he is not gay and was only pretending to be gay as part of his work. In an interview with La Repubblica newspaper, Monsignor Tommaso Stenico said he frequented online gay chat rooms and met with gay men as part of his work as a psychoanalyst. He said that he pretended to be gay in order to gather information about "those who damage the image of the Church with homosexual activity."

Bless me Father, for I have--oh never mind.

And this clown's running for president...

Wingnut congressman Tom Tancredo actually introduced H. 3266, a bill "To provide for the issuance of War on Radical Islam Bonds."

You read it right. Let's sell bonds to make war on a RELIGION.

Can't say I disagree with you there, Senator

Barack Obama, in Time: "I don't want to be invited to the family hunting party." - responding to claims that he's a distant relative of Vice President Dick Cheney.

More on Dodd

From an interview with Salon's Glenn Greenwald:

Dodd: Well, it's [the attack on the Constitution] so pervasive. I mean, its domestic. It's foreign. And it is has been so calculated on so many levels. . . .

It saddens me that it even has to be an issue -- the fact that "defending the Constitution" even has to be an issue in the presidential race.

But there is an audience for this. This is really important. This is not a narrow audience. This is a broad audience. This is an audience that will surprise you if articulated well. We can win on this.

A campaign for president allows you to have a megaphone here on a national scale to talk about these things, at a time when this crowd, if it continues, can enable you to stop them, do even more than raise the issues. But secondly, if I don't win this thing, I want everyone else to be talking about these issues.

I think it reaches into a conservative constituency who ought to care about this as much, and does in many ways. So it gives us a chance to do that.

I carry every day, and have for 26 years, a copy of the U.S. Constitution given to me by Robert Byrd [takes Constitution out of his back pocket]. And to me, what could be more fundamental? With all due respect, I care about health care, education, global warming. But if you get this wrong -- what do you got? A trade association. Who wants to be president of a trade association?

And this [holding the Constitution] is the spark, the illumination, it is, if I may so say, the envy of many around the world. We have been a guiding set of principles. What is going on with the rule of law isn't just happening here. . . Other countries are saying, "We can do this, too."

So there has been an erosion in the world with the rule of the law. Having led the world in the rule of law in the post-World War II period, and having nations reluctantly moving in the direction we were moving in, and they now see the U.S. has retreated, and they are making a hasty retreat themselves.

Josh Tucker [of NYU] makes the point about the Soviet Union collapse -- You can make the case that it was military, and that was part of it, but he believes and I believe that it was the rule of law. It was Eastern European countries recognizing that this was a total sham, beginning with the Prague Spring and 1956. The Soviet Union collapsed because it rotted from within, they just rotted without the rule of law. So in addition to the other factors, this has international reverberations, beyond just what happens in our own country.

Back from the City by the Bay

and will have some thoughts as soon as i catch up!

Thank you, Senator Dodd

Senator Chris Dodd puts a hold on Telecom Amensty Bill.

Let's stop cowering in fear to Mr. 24% and his army of winged monkeys. This is still America, if we want it to be.

Apology

In my previous post, I referred to "the 29-percenters" - the group of people who continue to support the Liar In Chief as he tries to destroy as much of our country as possible. I was in error. I should have used the term "the 24-percenters."

I apologize for my error.

War

To hear supporters of war, whether it's in Iraq, or Vietnam, or (some hope) in Iran, it's a glorious adventure, one which will unite as a people and bring our country back to the hallowed days after World War II, when America was established as a superpower and all was right with the world. They speak of those who wear the uniform in faux-reverential tones, speaking empty platitudes about honoring the men and women who fight our wars for us. All they know of war, all I know of war, has been learned from books and movies and TV. It's been well-documented that those in our government who sent our country to war in Iraq didn't have military experience of their own, and many of those with big mouths and big microphones either haven't served or won't serve, for primarily selfish reasons.

As I said, my only knowledge of war is second-hand, either through the truth, as best as it can be told, or through fiction, in dramatizations of battle. I'm in the middle of watching the new Ken Burns documentary, "The War," about that revered "Good War," World War II (I have seen episodes 1, 2, 6, and 7). I won't pretend that watching a documentary in any way allows me to share the experience of the men who were there, but I would like to share my reactions to the experience of listening to them talk.

When you listen to the men who were there, they don't speak of the glory of battle. Not only is it not the wackiness of Hogan's Heroes, it's not even the prisoners in Stalag 17. Or the gruff warriors in The Longest Day. Or even the blood on the beach in Saving Private Ryan. (Although Schindler's List comes closer than most.) They don't talk with wry smiles about spending six months wearing the same blood-soaked clothes in driving blizzards and oven-like jungles, or of liberating death camps, or having their foxholes fill with maggots as they were pinned down by artillery fire, or dropping bombs that still had the power to kill fifty years later. They don't talk about a "good" war, but instead speak of the "necessity" of what they were doing. For some, even Pearl Harbor wasn't enough justification, although the men who were unfortunate enough to walk through the gates of hell into Buchenwald or Mauthausen learned what the necessity of the war really was. No, sixty years later, these men speak of nightmares, and death, and convey with a look what they can't say with words, that there really are no words which can tell you what it's like. The footage that Ken Burns gathered is remarkable, backing the words with images of coffins and flamethrowers, emaciated soldiers and bombed-out buildings, sunken, haunted eyes and burning aircraft, spiraling into the ground. And none of it looks like fun. None of it even hints of a "glorious adventure."

One of the things that has long bothered me the most about our national shame in Iraq was that it has been clear from the start that no consideration was given to how war affects those who are on the battlefield, whether in uniform or not. And since no such consideration was given, our country was rushed into battle without doing everything in our power to avoid it. Our country has not suffered the staggering losses we did in Europe and the Pacific, when more people died on one battlefield in three days than in the fifty-five months we've been in Iraq. (And remember - we were the lucky ones. The war wasn't fought on American soil. Our houses didn't burn and our cities weren't destroyed.) However, listening to the testimony of the men and women in "The War," what continues to come to my mind is that we have forever damaged the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, American and Iraqi, who may not bear physical wounds due to the bombs and bullets, but will bear the marks of battle for the rest of their days.

To all of those who beat the drums for war - to those vile souls who still think that somehow blowing up bombs validates our national manhood and is something to swagger about. To those whose bloodlust for those who differ from themselves in heritage, or belief, or place of birth and drag us all along on their gruesome crusades. To those who would sacrifice other lives, American or not, in the name of greed and power. To George W. Bush, and Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz, and Colin Powell, and George Tenet, and Alberto Gonzalez, and Rush Limbaugh, and William Kristol, and Bill O'Reilly, and the whole gang over at Fox News, and the Corner at the National Review, and the rest of the 29-percenters who refuse to see what harm they bring to the world every time they speak. To all of you, I wish I believed in a heaven and a hell, and an afterlife where, in a just universe, those who have suffered for your ill words and ill deeds would spend eternity in paradise and where you would burn with the horrible wounds, the crippling nightmares, and the tragic devastation of lives forever changed by your deeds for a time out of time, beyond the death of the universe, spending forever in a cataclysm of pain for a crime for which there is no atonement.

To Tim Johnson, R-IL (15th)

Congressman Johnson,

I am writing to you to urge you to reconsider your vote and to overturn the President's veto of the expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. This bill is one of those good things that government can do, and which requires all of us to work together. Children do not have the choice of purchasing health insurance - they get what's provided for them, and for far too many children, that's not enough. The data is clear that preventative health care makes a huge difference, and for lots of families, that's not an option.

Our government has thrown away trillions of dollars in the last few years - the unconscionable disaster in Iraq, the Medicare debacle, and tax cuts for people who don't need the money. What's wrong with giving a small fraction of that to kids - money that will help them get a better start in life, money that will prevent us from paying thousands of dollars for emergency room trips when we could have paid a hundred for routine care? Are you willing to look at a kid and say "sorry, I could have helped you get better, but I decided not to?" Are you okay with letting kids suffer while you continue to support a failed policy?

The President is wrong on this (as he has been on so many things), but you have the power to help make it right. Overturn his veto.

Update

In case you're counting:

Days until the 2008 Illinois Primary (February 5) -- 114

Days until Election Day 2008 (November 4) -- 387

Days until Inauguration Day 2009 (January 20) -- 464

A corner-sitter

Living in Champaign, I know that many (like our own Pete) are upset that the University of Illinois got rid of its mascot, Chief Illiniwek. Not having the memories of watching the Chief as I walked around good ol' State U when I was a feckless youth, I mostly found the Chief's halftime dance an absurd mockery, and was glad when it was discontinued. Whichever side of the issue you're on, however, I hope you can see the sadness in the following letter in the News-Gazette:

Chief's gone, so what is point of returning?

I was disappointed to learn that Chief Illiniwek is no more. How sad. I grew up in Champaign, graduated in 1964 from Champaign High School and went to the University of Illinois for two years before the U.S. Army came calling.

I remember going to many games at Memorial Stadium as I grew up. We'd park on the grass on the west side of the stadium and walk through the falling leaves to the stadium; I loved those cool, crisp, sunny days.

Even though we lived in Kansas and now reside in Colorado, I'd bring my family back to Champaign occasionally and go the UI's homecoming games specifically to watch the halftime show. The football games often weren't very good. But I still got chills when the band would march across the field, and Chief Illiniwek would crouch down, sneak out through the marching band and then appear to cheers from the crowd.

I used to point him amid the band members to my son. He'd try to find him before I did.

Now I wonder what will happen to the Chief Illiniwek logo that was so common. As for the name Fighting Illini, how long before it will be in danger? Will we call the UI's team "the Fighting Midwesterners" or the "Fighting Central Illinoisans"?

The local Chamber of Commerce should know that I won't be coming back to Champaign and spending several hundred dollars while there. If Chief Illiniwek is gone, so is my desire to return to Champaign. Goodby.

ERIK (RIK) BERGETHON, Pueblo, Colo.

So, Mr. Bergethon spent his formative years in Champaign, up through part of college, and the only thing of value he can find to return to is the frickin' halftime show? That's truly pathetic. We still have the "cool, crisp, sunny days" and the falling leaves and the marching band, and the football team is actually good. But because a white kid no longer dresses up in a headdress for 5 minutes a week, it's all for naught.

Well, I'm glad you won't be here. I'll enjoy it more without you.

The magic beans

Just as Pete from time to time listens to wingnut radio, to hear what hate is being spewed over the air, I find myself drawn to their half-illiterate ramblings.

Today we find:

Ann Coulter saying that she hopes that one day Jews will perfect themselves and become Christian.

Debbie Schlussel comparing the Empire State Building being lit with green lights for the end of Ramadan to the planes flying into the WTC: "Planes into the building, yesterday. Jihadist-Green atop the building, today. Same difference."

BillO ranting about how John Edwards would be a horrible president because he wouldn't torture, he'd give prisoners access to attorneys, and he'd restore the Great Writ of Habeas Corpus.

And my favorite - the Nobel Prize committee is liberal because they gave Al Gore the Nobel Peace Prize for his work alerting the world about the dangers of global warming: "I can't help thinking that Gore's prize is yet another attempt by the left to undo the horrible trauma of Election 2000."

Now back to your regularly scheduled hate attacks against 12 year olds.

Anniversary of Shame

Five years ago, the U.S. Senate completed what the House had done the night before. They gave a madman a blank check to wage unprovoked war. Here are the words of that madman:

The United States does not desire military conflict, because we know the awful nature of war. Our country values life, and we will never seek war unless it is essential to security and justice. We hope that Iraq complies with the world's demands. If, however, the Iraqi regime persists in its defiance, the use of force may become unavoidable. Delay, indecision, and inaction are not options for America, because they could lead to massive and sudden horror. Should force be required to bring Saddam to account, the United States will work with other nations to help the Iraqi people rebuild and form a just government. We have no quarrel with the Iraqi people. They are the daily victims of Saddam Hussein's oppression, and they will be the first to benefit when the world's demands are met.

The Congress gave him all he wanted, as many craven democrats, afraid of what the big bad media would say, shamelessly caved.

The president's conduct is shocking, though, even in light of the egregious grant of authority by Congress, because even that pathetic measure allowed for the use of force only if the president certified to Congress that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Lies upon lies in a night of shame.

An outstanding liberal arts college....

Yet we produce Dan Quayle and Fred's trophy wife

Take a second look...

(Thanks to team member/all too infrequent contributor JB)

Much attention has been given to the military force authorization vote concerning Iraq. We conveniently forget, though, the outrageous power grant given to the president just a week after the terror attacks:

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- that the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Remember the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution?

That the Congress approves and supports the determination of the President, as Commander in Chief, to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression

and

This resolution shall expire when the President shall determine that the peace and security of the area is reasonably assured by international conditions created by action of the United Nations or otherwise, except that it may be terminated earlier by concurrent resolution of the Congress.

Read that in light of the odious "Lieberman-Kyl" amendment that says

the United States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization

Feel good about that?

The Conservative "Mind" at Work

Courtesy of Daily Kos, some tidbits from the sort of people you find flailing around the National Review, looking for a clue:

Are there even a thousand really poor people in all of America? Really poor. Dying-on-the-sidewalks-with-open-sores poor?

The so-called poor have cars and cable tv and free medical. They live in America in the 21st century, where school is free and libraries are free and a bus ticket to a better town costs less than a bag of crack. If they're "poor" it's because they were too lazy and stupid to a) finish high school and/or b) keep their pants on.

and

Advanced western democracies have delivered the most prosperous societies in human history. There simply are no longer genuinely "poor" people in sufficient numbers. As Miss Shaidle points out, if you're poor today, it's almost always for behavioral reasons - behavior which the state chooses not to discourage but to reward. Nonetheless, progressive types persist in deluding themselves that there are vast masses of the "needy" out there that only the government can rescue.

Yes, the conservative says, if you're poor, it's clearly a result of your choices, and besides, no one is really all that poor anyway - at least not the poor people they see on TV. One of the great things about this attitude is then nothing has to be done - poor people obviously have chosen to be that way because of their immoral lifestyles (we'll ignore the data, for example, about the preponderance of veterans among the homeless), so it's all their fault. And since we don't have, Ethiopian kids lying bloated and covered in flies on the street, no one is poor enough that they actually need help, so we're covered there.

I'm not going to bother to refute these arguments - those of us who actually have brains know poor people, from the truly extremely poor living on the street, or in constant threat of disaster, to the working poor - those with jobs (often multiple) but who still can't sustain a living and whose lives suffer every day because of it.

Schmidlap - is this an example of Evil, Greedy, or Stupid conservatives? I can see an argument for all 3.

Sen. Widestance and Der Chimpenfuhrer

George W. Bush and Larry Craig. Hmm, what do they have in common--other than an ambivalent sexuality? Very simple--neither one gives a damn about their Republican party.

The president brings out the veto pen to kill a bill that has widespread bipartisan support, a measure supported by 47 of 50 governors and radicals like Orrin Hatch. Fiscal conservatism? Please, more money falls off the back of supply planes in Iraq than this measure would have cost. There is no logical reason for the veto other than he wanted to do it and he doesn't give a damn about his party. That makes perfect sense, given that he feels he owes the party nothing. He did nothing with the party in terms of coming to prominence. He was the accidental empty suit who was the first spawn of a mediocre president and nothing else. He owes the party nothing, and is giving it nothing in return.

And Larry Craig? He is an embarrassment to the party and has angered even the Idaho GOP. He can do nothing as a legislator from now on, and he is a tremendous liability both locally and nationally. Does he care? No, like his president, "it's all about me."

How screwed up is our presidential selection system?

On how many levels is the process by which we choose our next president screwed up?

First of all--the "primaries."

Primaries have no explicit or implicit basis in the constitution. They are rooted in this rather bizarre "party" system we have now. The order of primaries is bound by nothing other than tradition.

With all due respect to the fine citizens of these states, WHY DO WE CARE ABOUT IOWA AND NEW HAMPSHIRE? These two states together have fewer people than live in metro Chicago, yet they can determine who leads the free world? Iowa farmers who think Steve Alford is a great guy and the inhabitants of Our Town get to decide? Also note that a primary vote is only a vote for delegates, who, in many states, have no obligation to do what the voters want.

Second--money. I don't really need to say more, we have a perverse system where fundraising, rather than positions, defines who wins. I get at least 10 calls a day from various candidates because I stupidly gave $50 to the DNC in '04 (and the "Do Not Call" list does not apply to political solicitations.) Money has grotesquely perverted what used to be "the democratic process."

And finally--"the electoral college." Yes, I know it is defined in the constitution, and I am loathe to amend the constitution to put the social policy du jour in place.

However, it is beyond clear that this vestige of an era when the vote was not universal and there was no national media no longer serves a defensible purpose. If a national candidate need not campaign in Texas or Illinois, the system is broken--period. Every vote counts, so--count them.

Thomas Jefferson on Blackwater

We're beyond being shocked at what this administration does, but the Blackwater revelations last week came close. We heard that this private army of mercenaries, hired by an ideological soulmate and close friend of the administration, has been killing Iraqis largely for sport, where drunken killers fire at random and face no legal consequences.

Mercenaries. Just think about it, what have we become? As Thomas Jefferson wrote of mercenaries 231 years ago,

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

Indeed, this is "totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation."

Who could have said such a thing?

"This defines Petraeus’s failure. Instead of obliging the president and the Congress to confront this fundamental contradiction -- are we or are we not at war? -- he chose instead to let them off the hook….

"Politically, it qualifies as a brilliant maneuver. The general’s relationships with official Washington remain intact. Yet he has broken faith with the soldiers he commands and the Army to which he has devoted his life. He has failed his country. History will not judge him kindly."

The title of this piece is "Sycophant Savior," and it also says that Petraeus "is a political general of the worst kind—one who indulges in the politics of accommodation that is Washington’s bread and butter but has thereby deferred a far more urgent political imperative, namely, bringing our military policies into harmony with our political purposes."

From MoveOn perhaps? Daily Kos? How about

(link)

Now, that's truly special

C&L has this one, but I wanted to make sure that everyone read it. (Of course, our readership here is much larger than theirs...)

Movie critic/Wingnut Michael Medved is out with an essay on Townhall entitled "Six inconvenient truths about the U.S. and slavery". You could go read the drivel, and there are those, I'm sure, who would want to try to rebut his arguments. But really, folks, here's the key - he's arguing that slavery wasn't that bad. Slavery. You know, one person owning another. I don't care if it was slavery based on race, or gender, or religion - I think most of us could pretty well agree that slavery is on the list of no-no's, well, at least those of us who aren't evil.

The buried, racist heads of the evil wing of the GOP continue to sneak out of the sand and their vestigial eyes are blinking in the harsh light of reality. What possesses someone to write an essay like this? If you read any part of it (and then wipe the vomit off your keyboard), you see that he's upset that anyone (I think there's a straw man slave in here somewhere) says that the US doesn't have the moral authority to bomb brown people because slavery was legal in parts of the country 142 years ago. Personally, I don't think we have the moral authority to bomb brown people because I don't think anyone has the moral authority to bomb brown people, but maybe I need to take a closer look at things.

Oh, for crying out loud, I can't even get sarcastic about this idiocy.

Just a suggestion

Under Harry Truman, the name of the "War Department" was changed to the Department of defense.

I think we should change it back.

Question and Answer Time

Chimpy McDumbass, January 11, 2000 - "Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"

The Giggling Murderer, September 26, 2007 - "As yesterday's positive report card shows, childrens do learn when standards are high and results are measured."

On Bill O'Reilly

At first glance, this is just fun. We can enjoy watching a Fox News blowhole makes some idiotic and racially ridiculous remarks, and then tries to bluster his way out of his self-inflicted head shot.

If you look a little deeper, though, you may see something more disturbing.

Bill O'Reilly is a jerk, a blowhard, a sexual bully, hypocrite, and an arrogant self-promoter who never let the facts get in the way of one of his silly tantrums.

But is he a racist? Well, what he is not, I presume, is the simple, evil, ugly racist, the vile creature that can drag a man to death behind a pickup truck or burn crosses on a family's yard. That kind of racism is vulgar, simple--and obvious.

O'Reilly, though, demonstrates a much more subtle, and I fear pervasive form of racism. It is the prejudice of ignorance and the bigotry of low expectations. Admittedly, Bill is not the sharpest knife in the drawer and a rather repulsive person, but what is shocking is not what he said, but what he thought about it. He thought he was sharing some kind of enlightening observation with his audience, that black people are, what do you know, just like "us."

This is the racism that allows many to say, "I'm no bigot," but would shudder at having a black boss, neighbor or son-in-law. This is the racism that allows home buyers and real estate agents, without saying a word between them, to only visit houses in certain parts of town.

It isn't shocking that Bill O'Reilly said that Sylvia'a Restaurant and its patrons were like any other. What is shocking and sad is how many Americans would, like Bill, be surprised at such an obvious "revelation."

Solidarity

The student editor of the Colorado State University newspaper is taking some serious heat for a controversial headline he wrote recently. In the interest of supporting our fellow Americans in advocating for freedom of speech and in telling the truth, we here at The Thinker would like to join CSU in saying:

FUCK BUSH.

That is all.

The Wrath of Khangress

The Senate still can't get it's collective thumb out of it's ass about Iraq - the GOP killed James Webb's amendment to require that troops stay home at least as long as they're in the field (the RNC considers it disrespectful to the troops to do such a horrible thing) -- but they can make sure that no wacky leftists can say mean things about generals without feeling the lash from an angry bunch of do-nothing bastards. I can be glad that neither of my senators joined the moronity, but 77 senators did.

Here lies: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

B: December 15, 1791
D: September 20, 2007

A Sun-Times Dumbass

I usually read the Chicago Tribune letters, but this is a classic from The Bright One

Got O.J.?

White America can finally re-hang the banner "Mission Accomplished" on the deck of the aircraft carrier. The threat of terrorism exists no more. Our troops can finally come home, Osama bin Laden can come out of hiding and 9/11 can finally be put behind us. Why? Because they got O.J.

William L. Bowman, Loop

Yep, William. It is "white America." That damned "white America" has been after O.J. ever since he nearly beheaded two people while slaughtering them was railroaded by the white establishment.

Good work, Bill, and

Politics Makes Strange Stall-Fellows

State of Minnesota, Plaintiff v. Larry Edwin Craig, Defendant
MEMORANDUM OF LAW OF AMICI CURIAE

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

AND AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION OF MINNESOTA IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT..

http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/freespeech/craig_v_minnesota_acluamicus.pdf

Ladies and Gentlemen - your Republican Party in action

I am as annoyed as anyone that the Democrats in Congress haven't been more effective at doing, well, anything, but there is the unfortunate reality that the GOP is still stuck in lockstep mode and would rather go down on the USS Chimptanic than pretend they're Americans. Specifically, after bitching for years anytime the Democrats utilized the filibuster (remember the whole discussion about the "nuclear option"?), they can't help themselves, and filibuster everything so that every vote essentially has a 60 vote requirement to pass. Of course, it's more civilized than that, so the Senate just has a cloture vote to end debate and proceed to a real vote, and unless the cloture vote gets 60, the bill or amendment stalls. Counting Bernie Sanders (I-VT), but not Joe Lieberman (Jackass-CT), the Dems have 50 votes, and that's unfortunately not enough.

Case in point: Arlen Specter, one of the more moderate Republicans, introduced an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008. The amendment would strike the staggeringly offensive portion of the Military Commissions Act, passed last year, which revoked the Great Writ of Habeus Corpus for those detained by the US. This really should be a no-brainer, except for those who think that anyone arrested is guilty by default and, as such, gives up all their human and civil rights. Hey - who thinks that way? Republicans!

In the cloture vote yesterday, the amendment got 56 votes, including 6 Republicans (but not Fascist Joe), so of course it failed. I'm sure the whiny brat who plays President would have had a temper tantrum, and might have even pulled out the old veto pad, so it might not have mattered (unless they could get 67 votes).

Sigh.

Of course, they're consistent, these Republicans who claim to love America but hate everything the country once stood for. The other vote yesterday was about granting congressional representation to the US citizens living in the District of Columbia (and giving one more seat to Utah). And it failed. No taxation without representation, indeed.

For once he told the truth...

It was refreshing, wasn't it, that for the first time, the president actually told the truth about Iraq?

He said "In the life of all free nations, there come moments that decide the direction of a country and reveal the character of its people. We are now at such a moment. "

How true. The moment here was to decide--should the U.S. resume its role as a decent and honorable member of the community of nations or continue its course as a rogue outlaw nation occupying and destroying sovereign states?

The answer? The latter of course, as he offers Iraq "an enduring relationship with America." An enduring relationship of occupation, war and death.