(Cross posted at SCCDems.ning.com)
The right wing is all upset about Rep. Pete Stark's remarks the other day, watch for yourself what our local congressman had to say:
The GOP and far right are demanding that Stark apologize for his remarks, because the words are "over the top." Personally I think Rep. Stark nailed the whole issue, and the right hates the fact that Rep. Stark is correct. How is it that we can continue to fund a war with no end and deny children the access to health care?
Billions of dollars have been wasted in Iraq, $9 billion disappeared, and the GOP wants to continue to fully fund a war with no accountability, no progress, at the expense of our children. Since the GOP has no leg to stand on they have to attack Rep. Stark for telling it like it is, and personally I hope more of our congress members start to show the backbone and courage of Rep. Pete Stark.
Watch this video then send it to everyone you know.
Tonight George Bush will give his second to last SOTU speech. Sitting behind Bush will be our own Nancy Pelosi, the first time in history a woman will sit in the Speakers Chair, next to her will be Cheney and in front of her will be a Democratic Congress. If you are interested in watching the SOTU speech with other democrats, click here for a list of "watch parties" near you.
Yes, I am going to watch the speech, yes, I will yell at the TV, yes I will have some wine while I watch (the only way to watch Bush is to have some sort of numbing substance in ones hand). Already there have been "leaks" regarding Bush's speech, for instance Bush is going to propose tax deductions for those who buy their own health insurance, and he will also propose a tax INCREASE for those who are provided health insurance by their employer.
The SOTU speech starts at 6:00 pm (PST), and immediately following Senator Jim Webb will give the Democratic response. Personally I am looking forward to hearing both Webb and commentary by Keith Olbermann (who will be paired with Chris Matthews on MSNBC).
Given that Bush's approval numbers are now in the "cellar," one has to wonder if tonight's speech will further erode his "approval" numbers. 60 percent of Americans now disapprove of Bush, and only 35 percent think he is doing a "good job."
Watch, listen and learn tonight, and remember that we only have to endure ONE more SOTU from Bush.
The right-wing attack machine is in meltdown after their latest attempt to discredit Pelosi. The newest salvo fired against Pelosi is that she has not hired union workers on her vineyard in Napa Valley. Sounds pretty bad doesn't it? A very quick look at the truth and the law reveal that there is a 1975 law which prohibits employers from seeking union contracts, as
Marc Grossman of the United Farm Workers Union explains: "It is patently illegal for any grower to even discuss a union contract, which is the only way you can supply union workers, without the workers first having voted in a state conducted secret ballot election."
Pelosi would be in violation of the law if she were to actively seek to initiate a union contract with those who tend her vineyard, yet the right-wing claims she is a hypocrite for NOT hiring union workers. Maybe, just maybe, the right-wing "experts" would be taken more seriously if they did any research at all, but then again, doing "research" would most likely debunk their attacks, so one can figure out why "research" isn't a job requirement for those right-wingers who are affiliated with the Hoover Institute.
Watch this report from ABC 7, and then ask yourself why it is that the person making these claims won't respond to the truth. Ask yourself why it was so easy for Channel 7 to investigate and find the truth, and why it seems to be so hard for the right-wing to even come close to the truth.
Once again the right-wing has shown that they are incapable of telling the truth as the truth does not fit their agenda. Shame on the right-wing and kudos to Channel 7 for doing their job as journalists.
Rudy Giuliani was a great leader in the days after 9/11. I was in NYC at the time, so I can tell you from firsthand experience that he calmed and cheered the city.
So, I'm no Rudy-hater, but it sure doesn't change his political stripes on a larger scale.
People talk about Rudy like he's some moderate bridge kind of guy that could appeal to, obviously, Republicans and Democrats.
Not this Democrat.
not when he's appearing at fundraisers to help get Ralph Reed elected as Georgia Lt. Governor. Georgia Lt. Governor? Seriously, you have to go out of your way to butt into that one, don't you?
So, Rudy, who is supposedly pro-choice, and pro-gay rights and pro-gun control (all theoretically making him palatable to Democrats) will show up for the guy who is among the most virulently anti-choice radical religious right-wingers there is?
Like I said: Giuliani doesn't fool this Democrat. He will be a slave to the "evangelical base" just like any other Republican these days. Including that other supposed moderate, John McCain.
The issue that Dubya tried to "triangulate", that is...and it's called immigration.
Everyone likes to talk about how President Clinton was a master of triangulation. Of course, this is sort of a made-up definition for the word "triangulate", as you can see when you actually look it up. All it really means is that Clinton was a master of reasonable compromise and had the negotiating and diplomacy skills to pull it off!
Dubya has typically gone for a less nuanced, more ham-fisted approach...you know, trusting his gut, believing God talks to him and ignoring the Constitution when it suits him.
But he's got himself all twisted in knots when it comes to immigration. He is trying to make everyone happy, and consequently isn't making anyone happy. He gave a major speech a couple of weeks ago, and it did nothing to appease or gladden anyone.
Those on the left, like Marc Cooper, actually saw much of the speech as reasonable, but can't get behind the overall message because of the draconian deployment of the already stretched-thin National Guard to the border. They see it as the wrong approach tactically, but even more decisively, it's a sign that Dubya is still pandering shamelessly to the radical right-wing who would like nothing more than to build a wall between the US and Mexico and ship out all 11 million illegals tomorrow.
Those on the right, like LaShawn Barber, are very inflamed over this issue, and this speech did nothing to calm them down. Thy're not even buying the "sending the Guard ot the border" bone they were thrown. (She has lots of great links to other conservatives on the topic too.)
Even those who don't love Dubya have been known to say "at least I know where he stands." You can poke holes in that all you want, and I have, but people believe he says what he believes. But this immigration issue is the one he can't seem to pull that act off with.
Why? Probably because in his gut his position is probably pretty close to the general Democratic position. And he's afraid to say so. Frankly, with his approval rating so low, even amongst conservatives, I don't know why he doesn't just go for it. Could it get worse for him?
A scathing NY Times editorial takes a look at the same Boston Globe story we blogged here about how many laws Dubya has decided he doesn't need to follow.
The conclusion: why veto when you can simply selectively follow the law?
Will this imperial presidency come back to haunt the Republicans in general? Only 2006 and 2008 will tell. Just remember, Republicans were a key partof ousting Nixon.
We culd be cynical and say they were only trying to save their own asses, but I believe some of them were honestly appalled by what their leader had resorted to and thought that, whatever party he belonged to, accountability was necessary.
OK, this is the kind of thing that just makes my head want to explode.
Yes, I'm sure of all the things to be debated about immigration the most important item is whether or not the National Anthem should be sung in Spanish. Apparently Dubya (and all his buddies in the right wing) believe it should not.
Which is so funny, because Bush was perfectly willing to sing the Anthem in Spanish when campaigning in Hispanic neighborhoods.
ARRRGH.
Seriously, there are so many important issues to be discussed. I can't believe this one bubbles to the top.
Here's the immigration question I continue to have: as the child of immigrants who dealt with quotas and long, slow processes to bring family members over one by one, aren't we talking about setting up a system that provides an unfair advantage to those who live closest? Are refugees from the Sudan or other chaotic global situations less deserving of a rapid and unlimited path to citizenship? Yet, they will not be able to so easily (easy being a completely relative term of course) establish themselves across our borders.
Do I sound like a Republican? I am sure I'm missing something.
Who out there has a great link to a clear, simple explanation of the proposed immigration solutions? I need to read up!
So, is it just me, or if DeLay had even a shred of innocence to clutch to his weaselly self don't you think he would have not just sought re-election, but also not announced he was going to resign?
I'm just saying.
Musical theatre fans get 5 extra points for chucking at my post title.
It's clear that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia doesn't think silly little rules apply to him. This NY Times editorial makes the case that he ought to recuse himself from a current case involving the rights of Gitmo detainees. But having an apparent conflict of interest has never stopped Scalia before. Remember the infamous duck-hunting incident?
Look I don't really care whether or not Scalia made a rude hand gesture. And I guess I don't even care if the guy has personal opinions on cases even before he's heard all the arguments. But somehow I naively thought that judges weren't supposed to go around calling one side of a case "crazy" before the case was even brought before them. It looks bad, Scalia, really bad...could you show us all a little respect and not do that please?
That's what lifetime appointments get you I guess. Although I totally understand the point of having such lifetime appointments, when you're stuck with a lifetime of this guy it's hard to see their benefit.
You know with this so-called-liberal-media parroting eveyrthng the Republican hacks say, it's no wonder the Democrats can't win for losing.
When we talk specific positions they say we have no vision. When we talk vision they ask "where's the beef?"
When we talk they ask for action. But God forbid we want to take action...that's proof that the apocalypse is on its way.
Case in point, the proposed censure of Dubya by Feingold. Judiciary Committee Chariman Arlen Specter is being so kind as to let the censure actually be discussed in committee.
Interesting excerpt:
Some Republicans have seized on the issue to rally their supporters by arguing that the censure plan is evidence that Democrats would try to take some action against Mr. Bush should they gain control of the House or Senate in the November elections.
A lot of fence-sitters and centrists and the pissed off of all political persuasions won't be put off by the concept of folks taking action. They'll ask, "what are you waiting for?"
And big surprise, there's finger-pointing and revelations of ass-covering.
I think we can safely assume that "Brownie" will get the handsome character-smearing from the Bush Administration and their flunkies that we've come to know and love.
I don't know sometimes who to be more angry with: the Republicans or the lily-livered media.
Let's start with the Republicans: yes, any woman who dares to criticize the Bush Administration must be "angry", especially that Hillary Clinton. She's obviously so "angry." (According to Ken Mehlman that is.)
To which I respond, "Yeah? So?"
First of all, there are a lot of people who are angry about what's going on with the Bush Administration. So when you point out Hillary as "angry", and say people won't elect an "angry" candidate, aren't you really just pulling out that whole JAHW (Just Another Hysterical Woman) argument? (Don't worry, the Repugs like to smear Democrat men too...usually by calling them "crazy" or unhinged"...think Dean and Gore as two examples)
But what gets me is that Dubya and this generation's tricky Dick (Cheney) and Karl Rove run around talking about heads on platters and lack of patriotism and hurting America, but they're not angry...they're stalwart or determined or whatever euphemism from a Western movie gets trotted out...and no one notices this discrepancy.
So, call me angry, baby, I don't mind! Just so long as you call them extremists. And liars.
Eric Alterman has a fascinating column in the Nation, which will do nothing to alleviate any cynicism you may be feeling...either toward the President or the press.
There is a culture of lying in Washington, and a culture of deciding which lies are more important, and then sticking to that no matter what, in the press corps.
Hence, lies about blow jobs? Earth-shattering and impeachable. Lies about the justification to go to war? Irrelevant and worth "moving on" from.
It would seem, by popularity polls, that the actual populace never has agreed on this count, as Clinton's approval rating has soared above Dubya's, even when Clinton was in the midst of his impeachment trial.
Meanwhile, new information continues to come out over the CIA leak case, and it just smells of that culture of innuendo, lying, looking the other way and "faulty recollections" that just don't ring true.
Where are the folks who will just call a lie a lie? It will take some of them to come along for our cynicism to dissipate.
Dubya just said in a press conference that he doesn't know Jack Abramoff: "I don't know the guy!"
This has Chalabi written all over it.
You know, the pictures of Chalabi siting with Laura Bush at one of the State of the Union speeches? That surfaced after Dubya said he didn't remember the guy.
Well, plenty of pictures exist of Dubya and Abramoff, and they are being withheld.
Utter arrogance and a strong conviction that one is above the law...that's the only explanation for such brazen behavior.
That, or being a sociopath.
OK, there IS a difference between taking money form Abramoff, and taking money from some of the same sources that gave Abramoff money too.
Let Guest Blogger Zachary Roth over at the Washington Monthly explain why the angle the GOP is taking is just plain wrong.
Abramoff never gave a cent to Democrats. That some Indian tribes, for example, like many companies, gave money to both sides, hedging their bets, is simply not the same. And saying it is won't make it so.
Here's a little message from the national level about it.
Here's a compilation of the many corruption scandals dogging the Republicans right now from the State site.
And here is more on the Abramoff/Republican Party link from NPR.
How come every time a Republican hack manages to acknowledge that something another Republican might have done ain't quite kosher the world falls at their feet saying "thank you!"?
Well John from SeeingTheForest is not falling for uber-hack David Brooks' latest bid for such fawning, and neither am I.
But more than a rip on David Brooks, John points out something that should be blindingly clear to conservatives everywhere, but somehow still isn't:
There's really nothing left of conservativism any more but militarism and low taxes. Fiscal responsibility and limited government are utterly gone. The Bill of Rights is almost gone. Even the militarism hasn't been very successful.The time is now for conservatives to realize that they are not Republicans any more...
So, the Bush Administration has finally started an investigation into the domestic spying program...namely how it got leaked to the Times. As the Times rightly points out:
"Leak investigations are often designed to distract the public from the real issues by blaming the messenger. Take the third leak inquiry, into a Washington Post report on secret overseas C.I.A. camps where prisoners are tortured or shipped to other countries for torture. The administration said the reporting had damaged America's image. Actually, the secret detentions and torture did that.Illegal spying and torture need to be investigated, not whistle-blowers and newspapers.
"
Seriously, I feel so tired of the lack of standards and lack of honorable behavior. This Administration is lowering the bar day after day. I can only hope we, the people raise it again, starting this year.
Wow. Read about Tom DeLay's lavish lifestyle.
Apparently a lot of high-powered politicians get a taste of this kind of stuff, but DeLay is DeKing!
But he's such a victim. Uh huh.
The Moderate Voice has an excellent exploration of an LA Times article that reveals that the Bush Administration has been quietly planning troop reductions and withdrawal from Iraq, in response to mounting pressure. Rather than cheer this development, it leaves a bad taste in the mouth simply because these plans were being made all while the vicious rhetoric about "cowards" who would "cut and run" and "bow to leftist extremists like Michael Moore" was flying out of the mouths of Administration tools everywhere.
It's the hypocrisy, as always, that really gets to me.
In case you've been hearing the Republican talking points, parroted by repulsive pundits like Christopher Hitchens, that the whole Plame affair is a tempest in a teapot, or uttered with a straight face by Republican officials like Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson that perjury isn't really a real criminal charge, here are some posts you should read.
You know, while you're sitting at home by the fire with visions of an indicted Dick Cheney dancing in your head.
From the Huffington Post...rising above all the skeptics to become a major credible source on all things Plame-oriented:
Here: Why Valerie Plame was a covert operative, and why outing her hurt not only her career, but risked the lives and work of other CIA operatives and even real-life energy consultants.
And also: a thorough recap of the entire messy affair and all its little fingers into exposing a corrupt and incompetent government: The Most Important Criminal Case in American History.
Excellent writing, and outrageous reminders.
The Republicans are at it again, bending the rules of the House to allow them extra time to arm-twist Representatives into voting their way. When 5 minute votes somehow stretch to hour-long votes, it ain't right.
This time it was the latest energy bill that delivers a windfall to oil companies.
I don't know who should be more ashamed the House Republican leaders who willfully flout the rules, or the Republican Representatives who allowed themselves to be so manipulated.
Karl Rove is heading back in front of the grand jury. And according to Laurence O'Donnell that means one thing: Rove's lawyer is convinced that Rove will be indicted for something.
Does O'Donnell make the case for you?
Now that the Republican Congress shot down a request for an independent commission to investigate governmental failures after Hurricane Katrina, now that it's the Republican-controlled government investigating the mess, now I guess it has finally become time to finger point and play the blame game.
Brownie is doing a "heckuva job" blaming local and state officials (at least in Louisiana, where they are Democrats, that is.) And surprise surprise: the so-called liberal media didn't find outright lies, outright perjury, no ThinkProgress found it.
I will give credit to some of the Congresspeople, too, who grilled Brown pretty hard and pointed out, um, inconsistencies in his story.
Dis. Gus. Ting.
It was already disgusting enough the way money was mismanaged in Iraq...and the way there seems to be exactly no accountability for that.
Now Hurricane Katrina hit a scant three weeks ago, and already the Bush Administration cannot seem to detail who got how much money and what they're doing with it.
Tyco execs recently got long sentences and staggering fines for bilking their company and shareholders. It was stealing, plain and simple. And let me tell you, if it's discovered that there has been Katrina profiteering and fraud, it will feel just about the same to me, no, worse.
Hat tip: Left Coaster
Hasn't Dubya learned yet that it doesn't pay to hire your buddies?
So, he's appointed one of his close aides to investigate what went wrong with the response to Hurricane Katrina.
That's almost like an independent commission, right?
The failures after Katrina were at many levels and crossed party, local, state, federal and every other kind of line.
Why would we expect anybody to investigate themselves?
But it seems to be only the Democrats who realize and acknowledge this.
The linked NY Times story may give a hint as to why (hint: rampant cronyism and corruption to start.)
If we're serious about making sure we're ready for the next disaster, natural or man-made, then we need to be serious about finding out everything that went wrong and exposing it.
How about writing a letter to the Editor today and saying so?
Knight Ridder has released an investigative report [reg. req'd.] that indicates that perhaps former FEMA guy Brown is simply this incident's fall guy. Not that he wasn't also a bumbling boob, but he was stuck waiting for a higher-up bumbling boob (namely DHS head Chertoff) to follow process before he could do his bumbling boob thing.
And let's not forget the ultimate bumbling boob, Dubya, who put these people and policies in place.
I wouldn't want to carry the burden these guys must be carrying.
Thanks to MoxieGrrrl for summarizing some quotes that are really worth reading.
Gosh, it's so weird to find myself agreeing with Dubya, DeLay and even Rick Santorum...albeit things they said years ago.
Really, read it and glory in the deep, deep hypocrisy.
What the media would have done with it if a liberal, a Democrat, or a progressive of any kind had mowed down a row of crosses memorializing our fallen troops...right in front of some of their mothers?
Neither can I. Neither can I.
I let Arianna do my job for me and point you to 5 excellent posts on the latest developments with RoveGate.
And here's more on Novak's hissy-fit.
Just in case you wanted a link for my reference to Bolton lying in my previous post, journalist friend told me yesterday that yes, I do qualify as a "citizen journalist."
Sigh. The pressure.
When you can't get what you want by making a compelling case for it, then follow the Nike slogan and "Just Do It."
Don't worry if you have to even lie a bit to make it happen.
Apparently the American people are very forgiving on that kind of stuff.
You may think I'm talking about the Iraq War, but this time around I'm talking about the nomination of John Bolton to be Ambassador to the UN.
Apparently Bush may appoint him while Congress is in recess. This amid allegations that Bolton lied about whether he was involved with RoveGate.
I've never bought that with Dubya "at least you know where he stands." That's a load of crap.
But he's consistent. I'll give him that. He'll consistently abuse power to further his agenda. Or sometimes the agenda of those to whom he is indebted.
Sometimes it's hard to know whether to hurl now or later. About this whole Rove situation, I mean.
But I think Arianna per usual gets it right on the Huffington post.
And can I ask why Jon Stewart is the only "newsman" going back and comparing former statements from the Administration with their current weaseling...and calls it like he sees it? It's lying. It's equivocating. It's lawyering. It's weasel-wording. It's the hypocrisy!!!
And now suddenly Bush won't comment on or endorse Rove because of the "ongoing investigation"...an investigation I believe was equally ongoing before when they were commenting ad infinitum.
Hard to believe Rove, the master strategist, would mess this up. But then again, I just think they're power mad and are amazed that they're finally encountering a media that's challenging them and a public that doubting them.
How could it happen? Once again, it's their hypocrisy! Don't brag about your morals, when you have none. Don't champion ethics, and then cross the ethical line over and over. That pisses people off, you know?
Does anyone else remember the Republicans howling with outrage that Janet Reno, then Attorney General, was making the decision about whether to investigate situations that arose in the White House of her boss?
Well the Republican certainly don't remember. As they investigate Rove and other messy little problems.
And certainly I see no outrage about the Pentagon investigating accusations of prisoner abuse against, well the military.
Except from Body & Soul perhaps. Hat tip to her.
How the hell is it that the NY Times Judith Miller, who never wrote a word about Valerie Plame, is the only one going to jail over Plame's outing as a CIA operative. Especially while Douchebag of Liberty Robert Novak has never so much as been brought in by the prosecutor?
It's the hypocrisy!
The White House and Republicans stand behind Karl Rove.
Take note of their arguments:
-He stated a strong belief
-He stands by his belief
-It's backed up by particular specific spinning of the information
-He will not apologize or back down
Democrats: take note. This is what we need to do. It's ridiculous to quibble over this little thing or that little thing that Howard Dean says. Yes, Biden I'm talkin' to you.
Any of those statements above could have applied to Dean's controversial statements from a few weeks back.
But we're all dithering about, making excuses, distancing ourselves. Doing the Republicans work for them!
Quit it.
IMHO.
Well, apparently it's a horrible offense to still want America to have some semblance of the global moral standing we used to have.
But it's only an offense for Democrats to want that. (oh, well, wait a minute, Republicans don't actually care abut that, so we'll never see if it's offensive for Republicans to feel that way.)
Does anyone else find it terribly ironic that Republicans want to go in your bedroom and your church and your science classroom and get in between your doctor/patient relationship, and they want to tell us all what our morals ought to be. But they dismiss the feeling of not only the rest of the world but nearly 50% of Americans that we are headed down the wrong moral path...not because of gay marriage or abortion or evolution, but because of war and torture and corruption?
I know that was the longest sentence ever, but you can pack a lot in when discussing the hypocrisy of Republicans lecturing us on morals.
Now Karl Rove is basically saying that Democrats cared more for the perpetrators of 9/11 then for our own. And you don't see him apologizing. How exactly are his statements different than Durbin's? How exactly is he not accusing half of the American population of being terrible people with that one?
Yeah, I don't know either. But the Republican react to our outrage by saying Rove's comments must have struck a chord. You can read here about what I think when someone uses that time-honored deflecting phrase.
It's the Hypocrisy!
OK, so the Justice Department decided to alter the punishment they wanted levied against tobacco companies. The money was going to be used to fund smoking cessation programs among other things, and they decided to change their request.
From $130 billion to $10 billion.
Wouldn't you say that qualifies as one of those things that make you go hmmm.....
You know Democrats make a lot out of the Orwellian language the Bushies have learned to use to get their programs across: Healthy Skies and Healthy Forests for programs that gut environmental protections; No Child Left Behind for a program that actually encourages school to urge lower-performing students to drop out of school to protect their federal budgets. Stuff like that is pretty infuriating.
But it goes way beyond the names of Bills and Programs. It goes to people themselves.
Like having Alberto Gonzales...a guy who tried to say that international law didn't really have to apply to us...as our head lawyer.
Like having someone who worked for industries from which the environment needs to be protected acting as our Secretary of the Interior.
Like having the most undiplomatic guy around proposed for our chief #1 diplomat.
Like having a guy who has clear biases against objective and legal health care decisions for women in charge of the FDA.
And now, on a smaller scale we have this: Kansas State Senator Kay Thomas, a woman who disapproves of the 19th Amendment that gave women the vote, wants to be Kansas' Secretary of State, and thereby the state's top elections official.
Especially in these last two instances, how can you not interpret these folks as wanting to be "activist"? They could go for any number of prestigious positions, but here are the ones they go for. How can you possibly assume they're in a position to uphold the laws of the land when they're on record as disagreeing with them?
Scary. Truly.
You would think that in this time of war...when army recruiting is going, well, really badly, and when reservists are being shipped off and re-upped and basically being far more than reservists, you would think the Republicans who proclaim their patriotism and profess their undying support for our troops wouldn't mind letting reservists have access to the military health care system.
Hypocrites. Feh.
OK, sorry...I'm just not going to give Senator Voinovich a big, wet kiss for being all anti-Bolton now...when it's probably a lost cause. The vote is on, and the lock-stepping Republicans are going to let this guy through, regardless of what Voinovich said in his little letter.
Meanwhile Voinovich, if he felt all that strongly, could have kept this guy from ever being voted on...killed his nomination in committee. But my, wouldn't that have looked bad while they were arguing that every judge deserves an up/down vote?
And wouldn't they have made Voinovich pay? Oh yes, I think they would.
So his conscience was conveniently and pragmatically set aside for the two minutes it took for him to vote on letting Bolton's nomination go to the floor...where he knows it will pass. And I hope he will feel full personal responsibility for the instatement of a man he thinks is completely incompetent for the role of Ambassador to the UN...in the role.
Remember: Advise and Consent has become Blind Consent.
No matter what the American people think of that concept.
Didn't I just write a post musing about the hypocrisy of the White House's outrage over the Newsweek Koran item? Why, yes I did.
I will admit, certainly, that Frank Rich has a definite flair for writing. I've cited him many-a-time here. I'm just saying, his fantastic article here is a few days behind me in skewering the White House for the same hypocrisy.
Ah, this is nice.
Comparing Democrats who don't want to just roll over and give up to Hitler.
Le's just quote Santorum himself, who just 10 weeks ago didn't like it too much when a Senator invoked Hitler's name:
He felt such comments "lessen the credibility of the senator and the decorum of the Senate."
Um, yeah, OK. If you say so Rick.
Yes, the question may well be...where did those standards go?
The revelations about Newsweek's "mistaken" story about a desecration of the Koran by US interrogators are distressing and merely one more example of such shoddy work. You'd think all news organizations would have learned a teeny little lesson from the CBS Bush National Guard Memo debacle.
But I gotta say I'm kinda tickled by the White House's indignation and demands for Newsweek to be drawn and quartered.
See, they were rather remarkably silent back when the NY Times and Washington Post were falling over themselves apologizing for blindly publishing stories about WMDs in Iraq and other contentions by the White House that were false.
And they didn't utter a peep when it turned out that the Swift Boat Veterans could be discredited without breaking a sweat.
And I could go on.
My point is that statements from the White House expressing outrage or indignation over media misdeeds is just a teeny tiny case of pot calling the kettle black IMHO.
More negative information about Bolton comes out every day. Now, it turns out that his bosses at the State Dept. didn't want him speaking in public in any format without prior approval. (Source New York Times.)
Sounds like someone who can't be trusted, and certainly can't be called diplomatic. I don't care if you think the UN needs reform or not, it's still a diplomatic body.
So now Republican Senator Voinovich has lent his voice to the Democrats in committee to refuse to endorse Bolton, BUT he still wants to send the vote to the Senate floor.
Why? Because the Republicans can't very well be whining that every judicial nomination deserves a full vote, while they let another nomination die in committee.
So why have the committees at all? If now the Republicans are going to feel like everything must go to full vote...I guess the next step is just to have full Senate debate on everything. Pretty soon our government will grind to a lovely halt!
Oh, but for that matter, why bother voting if we know they're just going to vote on party lines, no matter how much they might personally dislike what they're voting for?
It's just a few short steps to a puppet government at this point.
So sorry, Voinovich, you don't get mad props from me. If you were a real stand-up guy you'd kill the damn nomination in committee, like I know you want to.
Thanks to Kicking Ass, the DNC blog, for posting a couple of succinct, pithy posts this week highlighting how impossible it is for Republicans to avoid hypocrisy.
First, how two recusals from the committee investigating DeLay simply aren't enough.
Second, a topic I've ranted about before: how either US Treasury Bonds can be counted on, or they can't, but you can't use them as a carrot to support the private accounts idea from your Social Security Elimination plan on one hand, and then say they're illusory and won't be there to support the current Social Security program on the other hand. Well, unless you're Dubya, in which case you think you can do exactly that.
It's the hypocrisy that drives me nuts.
Just imagine for a second if a Democrat...or even Whoopi Goldberg...said the following:
Federal judges are the single greatest threat America has ever faced...a bigger threat than Al Qaeda, more dangerous that Nazi Germany, and more divisive than the Civil War.
Imagining the outrage, the uproar, the rush of everyone to denounce? Imagining calls for resignations? And mass rallies to declare that Democrats are not only against people of faith, but against America?
Yeah, well, Pat Robertson actually said it, and I haven't heard a peep about it in the mainstream media, have you?
More info here. Read it and take action.
Alternate Source: NY Daily News
OK, too many good articles today to post just one. Here they are:
1. Paul Krugman continues his crusade to expose the hypocrisy of just about every Dubya policy proposal. This time he's making sure we understand that when Dubya finally dropped the Social Security Benefits Cut Bomb, he wasn't really targeting only the wealthy. Isn't it ironic how the Republicans try to pretend the Estate Tax affects the middle class, when it doesn't, while they try to pretend the proposed cuts won'taffect the middle class, and it will? Oh, right. It's not ironic...it's dishonest and deceitful.
2. OK, if you don't understand the term "chilling effects" after reading this NY Times article about the Republican Chairman of the Public Broadcasting System, then...well read it again, I tell you. Government-controlled media starts here.
I'd say "Enjoy" if both stories weren't SO annoying!
I don't think we have much room to complain about rising gas prices while oil companies profits soar beyond reason. David Sirota does a great service pulling all the data into one place.
But come on people. We knew, didn't we? We knew:
1. Bush is an oil man
and
2. The Bush family is close with the Saudis
Now maybe we didn't really know, know in 2000, but thanks to Michael Moore we all certainly knew in 2004.
So, quit your whining. If you're surprised that the energy companies are in clover, while my personal pocketbook is pinched every time I fill my gas tank...then you weren't paying attention.
Man, the more you know about Bolton the creepier he seems. And it's not just the freaky moustache!
He's not just anti-UN, he's abusive and demoralizing. Just the kind of guy who should be working to bring nations together to achieve great things.
Hey, I knew that the Bush Administration had a "Starve the Beast" strategy...create huge deficits so they can starting eliminating social programs...but I guess that just goes double for the UN!
Atrios pointed me toward a site that has focused a lot of energy compiling information about Bolton in the last few weeks. Check out The Washington Note.
Just check out f'ing Ton DeLay on reviewing judges
Seriously I could puke that this corrupt jerk has the nerve!
Wow, this is an interesting story.
Now I'm sure we're all aware of various "awards" and "honors" bestowed within a particular industry that are really little more than paid advertisements. Nothing honorable about it, that's for sure.
BUt now it seems that for a donation to the National Republican Congressional Committee a doctor can acquire a nice little 'Physician of the Year' certificate.
What? Now that Bill Frist is majority leader, the Republican Party is suddenly doling out medical awards?
Oh dear.
OK, if you haven't already read the outrageous statements made by Senator john Cornyn, read them (and some commentary) here.
And before you start making apologies and excuses for Cornyn, think about how it would sound if he was using the same language to talk about the 9/11 terrorists. Remember how people were skewered for trying to understand why the terrorists might have done what they did.
Now read his statements again.
It's the hypocrisy!
This recent spate of pharmacists who refuse to issue birth control or morning after pill prescriptions, some of them just referring the women to other pharmacies, but some of them hanging on to the prescription and giving moral lectures, leaves me a bit speechless.
I'm glad Illinois' Governor has taken a strong step to counter this irresponsible behavior.
Shouldn't a pharmacist who tells their patient that a taking birth control pills is like having an abortion have his or her license revoked? I mean, isn't a mis-statement like that either a sign of gross incompetence or dishonesty?
I'm just asking.
So, just remember: anyone who goes all moral about the unborn, don't believe that is what they really care about unless they:
-Support family planning access to prevent unwanted pregnancies...here and abroad.
-Support programs to provide pre-natal care to needy women.
-Support programs to help children after they're born...or provide private assistance if they so prefer.
If you run into someone mouthing off about a culture of life who only cares about the life before it's born, and then only in the abstract, then you've got yourself someone whose real agenda is either controlling women, or keeping the gulf between rich and poor plenty wide, or some other underlying oppressive motivation.
So say I.
Republicans are losing their grip...especially on their branding as the party that has a trademark on patriotism and love of America.
See, it's hard to retain that image when you want to chip away at the very foundations of how our Government works. All of a sudden our form of government is worthy of being changed at will when they don't get exactly what they want. And these guys have so much arrogance they can't imagine a time when they won't be in the majority, and their very own rule changes will come back and bite them in the ass. [See: filibuster and other rule changes.]
And all of a sudden judges are wrong and deserve to be overruled by a congressional act or even threatened if they rule in a way they don't like. [See De Lay on Schiavo judges.]
Checks and balances? For the birds apparently.
And all of a sudden a guy whose corruption is so rampant and rank is worthy of benefits and support from leading conservative organizations. They feel the attacks on him are attacks on the entire conservative movement. Don't you think they're going to be sorry some day that they chose this corrupt, hypocritical villain as the representative of their movement? [See, oh what a surprise!, DeLay again.]
And let's remember how Ah-nold wants to cut death benefits for widows/orphans of public safety officers killed in the line of duty.
And how the Pentagon won't let military widows take pictures of their own husbands' caskets.
Why do some Republican leaders and this Administration hate America so?
UPDATED: One more good one on DeLay from the DNC's Kicking Ass blog
Apparently, the AARP agenda is to hurt the military and promote gay marriage. Who'd a thunk?
Well, apparently that's what the right wing thunk now that the AARP is pushing back on Bush's Social Security Phase-Out Plan. Thanks to Daily Kos.
But there's lot of great commentary out in blog land on this ridiculous advertisement (brought to you by the same folks who brought you the Swift Boat Liars, if you can believe it!) Here's more on the folks behind the ad.
From Matthew Yglesias
From Oliver Willis Twice.
UPDATE: Apparently the ad has been pulled. But Talking Points Memo saved caches of the pages before the ad was pulled.
The fun never stops. Those wascally wepublicans.
Big news today: a Bush aide goes public with his contention that Bush never really pursued getting funding for faith-based initiatives designed to help the poor and needy.
You're kidding, really? That's shocking?
And what is also not shocking is how ex-aide David Kuo wants to have it both ways. Like completely cowardly Christie Whitman he tries to criticize something he feels strongly about, without actually calling the President, you know the guy in charge, on it.
So that's how we get this incongruous set of quotes from him:
This:
"Capitol Hill gridlock could have been smashed by minimal West Wing effort. No administration since [Lyndon B. Johnson's] has had a more successful legislative record than this one. From tax cuts to Medicare, the White House gets what the White House really wants. It never really wanted the 'poor people stuff.'"
And this:
Kuo said that he continues to have "deep respect, appreciation and affection for the president." Kuo added: "No one who knows him even a tiny bit doubts the sincerity and compassion of his heart."
Except Dubya is the White House, and the White House never really wanted that 'poor people stuff', right?
Feh.
Oh, the uniter is at work again. The olive branch firmly in hand. (It's just that the fingers of his other hand are crossed behind his back!)
But sometimes one should really align schedules with one's attack dogs to avoid awkward social moments.
Like this week. The RNC sends out a nasty 13-page(!) letter to 1 million activists attacking Harry Reid.
A few hours later Reid had to show up at a White House dinner intended at a gesture of conciliation, per the WaPo.
Awwww-kward.
Here's where you can sign a DSCC petition, asking Bush to honor his commitment to bipartisanship and renounce ugly, personal attacks, even if they are perpetrated by his former campaign chairman!
But you know as well as I...he could get 50 million signatures and would ignore it, huh?
Remember when everyone was screaming about Republicans changing ethics rules to protect DeLay? Remember when they dropped the effort...only after DeLay seemed safe from indictment, and used that good will to instead push through some other changes that still end up protecting their own from ethics investigations?
Well, the other shoe finally dropped, and the Republican Congressman who dared to investigate ethics charges against one of his own, DeLay, was formally booted from his position as Chair of the Ethics Committee.
The Republicans even replaced two other of their committee members with Congressmen who had donated money to DeLay's legal defense fund.
Nice, huh?
Wow. Once again accountability is not something expected from those actually in power. What was I thinking?
Amazing how Ohio's Secretary of State can preside over the most poorly run election in the nation, but he's mad at the lawyers who pointed it out...wants them sanctioned.
Like I said: Pa. The. Tic.
Just watch Christine Todd Whitman on The Daily Show pimping her new book about the battle for the soul of the GOP.
Worthy sentiments about the need for a big tent blah blah blah.
What's my issue: Christine was on The Daily Show before. Before the election and after she left her job as head of the EPA. And at that time, when her criticisms of Bush and the party might have actually made a difference she was all "more time with the family" blah blah blah. She wouldn't rise to any of Stewart's bait about why she was really leaving. She wouldn't utter a single word in criticism.
Now she's selling a book. Now she's developed cojones.
Coincidence? Hypocrisy? You be the judge.
So, if you only read the headlines, you would think that all the House Republicans had done was reverse the rule change they made late last year that would allow their leader Tom DeLay to stay in his leadership position, even if indicted for a felony.
Seriously, every single headline in the So-Called Liberal Media focuses on that (which I happen to agree was a good move on the part of the Republicans.)
I had to go read some the articles completely to understand that the Republicans simultaneously did move forward another highly controversial ethics rule change that would make it harder to investigate a member of Congress without the cooperation of his or her own Party.
So, all they've done is effectively mask the continued push to weaken House ethics. Meanwhile I think the likelihood that DeLay gets indicted has dwindled down to a reasonable risk for them to take.
Smart Republicans. Let's hope the Democratic Party leadership develops some guts and exposes the whole story loudly. I really don't want to be made sick by a bunch of bi-partisan praise on "doing the right thing."
Just vote so that you don't piss off one very pissed off evangelical leader. [reg. required.]
Evangelist James Dobson is threatening Democratic Senators...telling them how to vote if they don't want to be targeted by his followers, to be "put in the bull's eye" to be precise.
This is just what I want, don't you?
People talk about the left, like Michael Moore, being strident etc. I've never seen a lefty that can hold a candle to guys like Dobson, or Zell Miller for that matter.
Meanwhile those who question the inordinate number of valuable gifts Clarence Thomas has received as a Supreme Court Justice are accused of trying to "over-ethicize" [sic] life!
Just remember, when the religious right talks about values, their definition can be narrowed down to two things, and only two things:
1. Abolishing a woman's right to choose would exhibit good values.
Caring abut what happens to that baby later...its hunger, poverty, health care or ability to get an education? Optional.
2. Writing the marginalization of a large minority group into our Nation's constitution would exhibit good values. Preventing that group from having even the barest protection under the law...from both bodily harm or
Everything else: caring about going, ill-prepared, to war for the wrong reasons; caring that the death penalty is applied inequitably, caring about any other morally upright concept? Again, completely optional.
This cherrypicking from the Values tree is so hypocritical.
When the initial counts showed Republican Dino Rossi with a slim lead in the Washington Governor race, they paid for billboards saying, "Christine, Concede".
But now, now that every valid vote actually has been counted and Democrat Christine Gregoire took the lead, Rossi wants a mulligan?
Oh my. I don't have to say more about this, do I?
David Sirota has this concise run-down of the holiday hypocrisy of the Bush Administration.
It is fashionable in some circles to denigrate Kerry as someone unable to talk in sound bites, but I think he gave us a pretty good one when he said Bush should stop "talking about family values and start valuing families."
Even the less wealthy ones.
Kerik withdraws name as Homeland Security Chief. Seems he hired an illegal immigrant as a nanny and neglected to pay proper taxes.
I believe he is the first man to lose out on a gig for this reason.
So, actually, is this a sign of progress...when men are held equally accountable for "household" issues?
So, I guess we can all stop taking it personally. Bush II doesn't just dislike the American press and being open with the American people.
Of course, I already suspected as much after his reaction when the BBC interviewed him earlier this year, but now he's offending the South Americans too.
That's Bush II: spreading disdain and disaffection worldwide.
OK, yesterday was a bad day...there are simply more than one things to talk about:
1. New Budget Screws College Students [Reg. reqd.]
2. Ashcroft's Justice Dept. Ignores Civil Rights complaints [Reg. reqd.]
3. Republicans Derail Post-9/11 Intelligence Reform
It's enough to make you weep.
Weep for less fortunate teenagers who want to advance themselves.
Weep for those who are still oppressed due their race, religion or whatever...and don't even tell me you think it still doesn't happen.
Weep for us all that these Congresspeople are willing to politicize our security after wrapping themselves in the flag to get elected.
Arlen Specter has saved his opportunity to be the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee...by sacrificing his integrity and legacy. Maybe he's an early candidate for the Colin Powell of the reign of Bush II.
Here's a CNN news story on the subject:
But here's some great commentary on it from Slate.
I cannot even stand to say much about the incredibly hypocritical move of republican lawmakers to get rid of a rule THEY created to force a House leader to step down if indicted.
THEY created this rule in 1993 to get a Democrat, of course, and THEY said they held themselves to higher standards than those values-less Democrats.
Just kidding everyone. When it's one of our own, like skeevy Tom DeLay, well then...oh never mind. There's no excuse or reason. It's just pure 'because-we-can' politics.
Source: WaPo article
I find it more than a little ironic that the nation's highest ranking justice office has such a problem with the justice system doing its thing.
Ashcroft once again equates challenging the President with aiding the terrorists.
I think it's shameful, personally.
Source: 11/13 Washington Post
Am I the only one who found Ah-nold insufferably arrogant and sophomoric in his 60 Minutes interview?
And was Morley Safer in LOVE with the guy or what? He had this star-struck, slack-jawed admiring expression on his face the whole time. One more softball question, come on Morley, you can do it!
Yes, please, show Ah-nold talking about girly-men one more time, won't you?
And I just ADORE the joke about his WIFE screaming at him for not making money! What is this the 1950s, when such comments went unremarked upon? Give me such a very big break. First of all, his wife has plenty of money on her own I would imagine...not to mention Ah-nold's MILLIONS.
And gloating so much over Gray Davis. Classy, Ah-nold. Really.
And yet, and this trips me out: my S.O. was saying he came across as charming and honest.
My head is going to explode! Is it just me? Am I the only one who finds him adolescent and arrogant?
OK, I'm ruining my weekend by reading the new this morning.
I may have to stop before I come down with the "stomach flu" and throw up.
Let's see how they savage this whistleblower's reputation.
But it's pretty hard when you see this list of what Bush supporters believe.
The whole report is just a sad statement about the lack of real information getting through to a great number of voters.
Wanna bet they watch Fox News?
The big buzz this morning is about Bush following Cheney's lead and telling an easily disproved lie: that he never said that he didn't know where OBL was and wasn't that concerned about it.
I personally have seen that clip on multiple occasions, so I knew it was a bald-faced lie the moment he said it.
Most people focus solely on the fact that it was a lie, a real gotcha moment.
But over at Talking Points Memo, Josh Marshall points out that this comment matters more than as evidence of a lie, but as evidence of an entire mindset. He also provides the entire context of the "not concerned" comment.
Check out his commentary here.
Paul Krugman brilliantly picks apart George Bush's rote stump statements, not only his lies about Kerry's economic plans, but his lies about his own economic record.
These are the messages Bush will try to fool the public with tomorrow. Arm yourself with the ammunition to knock down each lie by reading Krugman's column.
Full text in extended entry:
Checking the Facts, in Advance
By PAUL KRUGMAN
NY Times
Published: October 12, 2004
It's not hard to predict what President Bush, who sounds increasingly desperate, will say tomorrow. Here are eight lies or distortions you'll hear, and the truth about each:
Jobs
Mr. Bush will talk about the 1.7 million jobs created since the summer of 2003, and will say that the economy is "strong and getting stronger." That's like boasting about getting a D on your final exam, when you flunked the midterm and needed at least a C to pass the course.
Mr. Bush is the first president since Herbert Hoover to preside over a decline in payroll employment. That's worse than it sounds because the economy needs around 1.6 million new jobs each year just to keep up with population growth. The past year's job gains, while better news than earlier job losses, barely met this requirement, and they did little to close the huge gap between the number of jobs the country needs and the number actually available.
Unemployment
Mr. Bush will boast about the decline in the unemployment rate from its June 2003 peak. But the employed fraction of the population didn't rise at all; unemployment declined only because some of those without jobs stopped actively looking for work, and therefore dropped out of the unemployment statistics. The labor force participation rate - the fraction of the population either working or actively looking for work - has fallen sharply under Mr. Bush; if it had stayed at its January 2001 level, the official unemployment rate would be 7.4 percent.
The deficit
Mr. Bush will claim that the recession and 9/11 caused record budget deficits. Congressional Budget Office estimates show that tax cuts caused about two-thirds of the 2004 deficit.
The tax cuts
Mr. Bush will claim that Senator John Kerry opposed "middle class" tax cuts. But budget office numbers show that most of Mr. Bush's tax cuts went to the best-off 10 percent of families, and more than a third went to the top 1 percent, whose average income is more than $1 million.
The Kerry tax plan
Mr. Bush will claim, once again, that Mr. Kerry plans to raise taxes on many small businesses. In fact, only a tiny percentage would be affected. Moreover, as Mr. Kerry correctly pointed out last week, the administration's definition of a small-business owner is so broad that in 2001 it included Mr. Bush, who does indeed have a stake in a timber company - a business he's so little involved with that he apparently forgot about it.
Fiscal responsibility
Mr. Bush will claim that Mr. Kerry proposes $2 trillion in new spending. That's a partisan number and is much higher than independent estimates. Meanwhile, as The Washington Post pointed out after the Republican convention, the administration's own numbers show that the cost of the agenda Mr. Bush laid out "is likely to be well in excess of $3 trillion" and "far eclipses that of the Kerry plan."
Spending
On Friday, Mr. Bush claimed that he had increased nondefense discretionary spending by only 1 percent per year. The actual number is 8 percent, even after adjusting for inflation. Mr. Bush seems to have confused his budget promises - which he keeps on breaking - with reality.
Health care
Mr. Bush will claim that Mr. Kerry wants to take medical decisions away from individuals. The Kerry plan would expand Medicaid (which works like Medicare), ensuring that children, in particular, have health insurance. It would protect everyone against catastrophic medical expenses, a particular help to the chronically ill. It would do nothing to restrict patients' choices.
By singling out Mr. Bush's lies and misrepresentations, am I saying that Mr. Kerry isn't equally at fault? Yes.
Mr. Kerry sometimes uses verbal shorthand that offers nitpickers things to complain about. He talks of 1.6 million lost jobs; that's the private-sector loss, partly offset by increased government employment. But the job record is indeed awful. He talks of the $200 billion cost of the Iraq war; actual spending is only $120 billion so far. But nobody doubts that the war will cost at least another $80 billion. The point is that Mr. Kerry can, at most, be accused of using loose language; the thrust of his statements is correct.
Mr. Bush's statements, on the other hand, are fundamentally dishonest. He is insisting that black is white, and that failure is success. Journalists who play it safe by spending equal time exposing his lies and parsing Mr. Kerry's choice of words are betraying their readers.
E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com
Again, why lie about something so easy to disprove?
While Cheney is daring to lie that Edwards' "hometown paper calls him Senator Gone" (LIE!!!!!)
And touting his own position as President of the Senate who presides there most Tuesdays (LIE!!!!)
The reality turns out to be that Edwards and Cheney have presided over the Senate exactly the same number of times in the last 4 years: twice.
Sounds equal, except of course Cheney is the one who is supposed to be doing the presiding. when he's absent...which was about 160 times, other Senators get to step in.
Why?
Why lie about such things?
I'm just so aggravated.
President Allawi comes here, speaks to our government and press, and paints George Bush's rosy picture of Iraq.
A couple of weeks later, he's home speaking to his own Assemble, and all the roses have withered and died. Things are tough and getting tougher.
Feh.
Source: NY Times [registration required]
Why?
Why, oh why?
Why would Dick Cheney say that last night was the first time he had met john Edwards?
I completely do not get the point of such a lie. One so easily disproved.
Thanks to Boing Boing for providing several proof points.
I continue to think that exposing the hypocrisy and purposeful twisting of the truth by the bush Administration will contribute mightily to its downfall. It becomes ever clearer that they will say anything and hope not to get caught to win this race.
Today's latest example, courtesy of the The Talent Show.
If this is the Bush idea of "bringing a terrorist to justice", then how can anyone claim Kerry would be weaker on the war against terrorists?
As gas prices go back up to their all-time high, it's instructive to think back on promises made and promises broken.
George Bush asked us to "just trust him", and traded on his status as a businessman who would have a good and persuasive relationship with the MidEast oil suppliers like Saudi Arabia.
He made some promises he couldn't, or perhaps won't, keep:
Check it out here.
I know, I know. There are those who don't think it's "productive" to call Bush a liar.
I just happen to disagree.
Don't get me wrong. I think he shows bad judgment. I think he is devious. I think he's incompetent. I'm not sure I really think he's stupid, although I certinaly think he is anti-intelligence and still mentally an adolescent. He can be all these things. And sometimes he's just a liar.
Reuters writes a polite little article that points out some mis-statements Bush has made of late on how things are going in Iraq.
My question is: aren't we worried that our President is either a) purposely lying about how things are going in this War that is killing our troops (and civilians) every day and costing BILLIONS of dollars or b) so NOT on top of what's happening there that he mis-states key data points and by a lot.
Don't we kind of want a President who's a little more engaged, involved, on top of things and honest?
I do.
So, we were just treated to Bush and Allawi's rosy picture of a safe and secure Iraq...heading toward democracy, and bound and determined to hold elections in January.
A little discordant note was hit by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who said if violence meant that a significant number of Iraqis couldn't vote, well, then "so be it."
And now, Secretary of State Colin Powell admits the insurgency is "intensifying". And predicts that there may be snipers aiming at the polls.
Sounds great. Very safe and secure.
Well, my fave guy Krugman is right when he calls it The Last Deception.
Well, okay...my line is "It's the hypocrisy, stupid" and his is "It's the dishonesty, stupid" but pretty damn close.
Krugman's column this week is brilliant.
And ties in very well with my recent rant that political dishonesty has become so commonplace that no one bothers to get outraged over it anymore. It's just considered politics as usual.
Well, maybe it's politics as usual in THIS administration, but that doesn't mean we should stand for it.
Oh, and what's Krugman's beef...deficits. The under-promising and over-performing deficit predictions. Here's the link.
And full text is in the extended entry:
The Dishonesty Thing
By PAUL KRUGMAN
New York Times
Published: September 10, 2004
It's the dishonesty, stupid. The real issue in the National Guard story isn't what George W. Bush did three decades ago. It's the recent pattern of lies: his assertions that he fulfilled his obligations when he obviously didn't, the White House's repeated claims that it had released all of the relevant documents when it hadn't.
It's the same pattern of dishonesty, this time involving personal matters that the public can easily understand, that some of us have long seen on policy issues, from global warming to the war in Iraq. On budget matters, which is where I came in, serious analysts now take administration dishonesty for granted.
It wasn't always that way. Three years ago, those of us who accused the administration of cooking the budget books were ourselves accused, by moderates as well as by Bush loyalists, of being "shrill." These days the coalition of the shrill has widened to include almost every independent budget expert.
For example, back in February the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities accused the Bush administration of, in effect, playing three-card monte with budget forecasts. It pointed out that the administration's deficit forecast was far above those of independent analysts, and suggested that this exaggeration was deliberate.
"Overstating the 2004 deficit," the center wrote, "could allow the president to announce significant 'progress' on the deficit in late October - shortly before Election Day - when the Treasury Department announces the final figures."
Was this a wild accusation from a liberal think tank? No, it's conventional wisdom among experts. Two months ago Stanley Collender, a respected nonpartisan analyst, warned: "At some point over the next few weeks, the Office of Management and Budget will release the administration's midsession budget review and try to convince everyone the federal deficit is falling. Don't believe them."
He went on to echo the center's analysis. The administration's standard procedure, he said, is to initially issue an unrealistically high deficit forecast, which is "politically motivated or just plain bad." Then, when the actual number comes in below the forecast, officials declare that the deficit is falling, even though it's higher than the previous year's deficit.
Goldman Sachs says the same. Last month one of its analysts wrote that "the Office of Management and Budget has perfected the art of underpromising and overperforming in terms of its near-term budget deficit forecasts. This creates the impression that the deficit is narrowing when, in fact, it will be up sharply."
In other words, many reputable analysts think that the Bush administration routinely fakes even its short-term budget forecasts for the purposes of political spin. And the fakery in its long-term forecasts is much worse.
The administration claims to have a plan to cut the deficit in half over the next five years. But even Bruce Bartlett, a longtime tax-cut advocate, points out that "projections showing deficits falling assume that Bush's tax cuts expire on schedule." But Mr. Bush wants those tax cuts made permanent. That is, the administration has a "plan" to reduce the deficit that depends on Congress's not passing its own legislation.
Sounding definitely shrill, Mr. Bartlett says that "anyone who thinks we can overcome our fiscal mess without higher taxes is in denial." Far from backing down on his tax cuts, however, Mr. Bush is proposing to push the budget much deeper into the red with privatization programs that purport to offer something for nothing.
As Newsweek's Allan Sloan writes, "The president didn't exactly burden us with details about paying for all this. It's great marketing: show your audience the goodies but not the price tag. It's like going to the supermarket, picking out your stuff and taking it home without stopping at the checkout line to pay. The bill? That will come later."
Longtime readers will remember that that's exactly what I said, shrilly, about Mr. Bush's proposals during the 2000 campaign. Once again, he's running on the claim that 2 - 1 = 4.
So what's the real plan? Some not usually shrill people think that Mr. Bush will simply refuse to face reality until it comes crashing in: Paul Volcker, the former Federal Reserve chairman, says there's a 75 percent chance of a financial crisis in the next five years.
Nobody knows what Mr. Bush would really do about taxes and spending in a second term. What we do know is that on this, as on many matters, he won't tell the truth.
E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com
Poor John McCain. His whole reputation is based on being a straight-shooting, independent guy with appeal to all sorts of people in both parties.
But he's aligned himself inextricably with Bush: essentially a dishonest guy who is tied to special interests and worries most about his appeal to the most radical wing of his party.
What to do?
You try to have it both ways. Hear how in the extended entry:
So conservative columnist Cal Thomas cites a quote from John McCain in a 1973 article and MIS-quotes it to indicate that McCain said John Kerry's Congressional testimony in 1971 was used as propaganda in the POW camps.
Thomas' article was published on 8/9/04.
Yup.
4 weeks ago.
Since then it's been spreading all over the conservative pundit preserve.
And McCain does nothing to stop the misuse of his mis-quoted self.
But when asked directly, he decides can't quite lie, so he compromises by removing himself from the equation, but setting up some shadowy "others" as the source of such a connection between Kerry's testimony and the POW camps.
This is the same sick strategy Bush used so well around the Swift Boat ads.
And McCain should not for one second imagine that he is some morally superior paragon of decency. he has destroyed that image with this campaign.
Read the whole story at mediamatters.org
Read this excellent rant against those who practically swoon whenever a conservative or Republican criticizes Bush or admits they will vote for Kerry.
The thing is, I'm often one of those people. I like to post here when some of those kind of folks make such pronouncements. And I have to admit that I have lately been reading Andrew Sullivan's blog and appreciating his anti-Bush rhetoric.
But this Atrios post makes me more aware of some of Sullivan's earlier writing, which, being late to the Daily Dish party, I wasn't aware of. And it's not stuff I agree with or admire.
I will draw a distinction here: I do think we should welcome with open arms those people who have seen the error of the radical right wing path and, like David Brock, behave like they are atoning for a sin!
Sullivan does have that whole attitude that conservatism is right and proper, and Bush is just some anomaly. I hate to break it to him, but Bush is the norm for the Republican Party now, whatever faces they chose to parade across the podium in NYC.
Enough of my rant: read Atrios' rant.
It continues.
The dumbing down (if that's even possible) of George Bush by his own supporters.
Oh, yeah, Bush...not a great speaker, not a great debater, not great at thinking on his feet.
This is the President of the United States we are talking about.
Supposedly the most powerful man in the world.
Shouldn't he be able to speak and even debate? I mean how about speaking so he can convince and cajole international leaders?
As for being unable to think on his feet...perhaps that's why he sat there for 7 minutes while the US was under attack.
I mean, this is the President of the United States. Shouldn't he be a quick thinker? Should he be able to react and act?
I actually read a blog entry (which I wish I had bookmarked) yesterday that claimed that being able to relate and connect to people emotionally (As Bush can according to this blogopundit) was more important in times of way than intellectual ability!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Gee that sounds awfully "sensitive" to me, doesn't it?
I could throw up.
Perhaps Zell should have removed this from his site before he got up and performed an egregious flip-flop at tonight's RNC Convention.
Thanks to Atrios for the link.
The WaPo does such a good job picking apart Giuliani's speech, I don't need to say a word.
Read it here.
The only thing that bothers me?
The headline is "Giuliani Charges Lack Context", and the piece proceeds to expose the context.
Why is the media so afraid to simply call these people liars?
Is it NOT lying when you purposely twist and misrepresent someone's words?
I think it is.
You might not have even heard about this latest character smear, but Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert made some snide insinuations about George Soros (a major MoveOn contributor) and where he gets his money.
Today Soros responded with a formal letter to Hastert asking him to cease and desist.
You can get a good snapshot of the incident and a link to Soros' letter at Joi Ito's blog Here.
The thing I like is that Soros is stepping up and taking action. All those whiners about Michael Moore and 'Fahrenheit 911' never actually DID anything about it, because they knew Moore had fact-checked that movie.
If you're really in the right, you're willing to do what Soros did. Or what Kerry did by taking his complaint about the Swift boat smears to the FEC.
If you're merely getting appropriately slammed...you complain a lot, but there's nothing you can do.