First of all please note that the following is NOT from any comedy show, the following is an actual interview with John McCain on his bus tour: (Weaver is John Weaver, his senior adviser, and Brian is Mr. Jones, his press secretary)
Reporter: "Should U.S. taxpayer money go to places like Africa to fund contraception to prevent AIDS?"Mr. McCain: "Well I think it’s a combination. The guy I really respect on this is Dr. Coburn. He believes - and I was just reading the thing he wrote - that you should do what you can to encourage abstinence where there is going to be sexual activity. Where that doesn’t succeed, than he thinks that we should employ contraceptives as well. But I agree with him that the first priority is on abstinence. I look to people like Dr. Coburn. I’m not very wise on it."
(Mr. McCain turns to take a question on Iraq, but a moment later looks back to the reporter who asked him about AIDS.)
Mr. McCain: "I haven't thought about it. Before I give you an answer, let me think about. Let me think about it a little bit because I never got a question about it before. I don’t know if I would use taxpayers' money for it."
Q: "What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush’s policy, which is just abstinence?"
Mr. McCain: (Long pause) "Ahhh. I think I support the president’s policy."
Q: "So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?"
Mr. McCain: (Long pause) "You’ve stumped me."
Q: "I mean, I think you’d probably agree it probably does help stop it?"
Mr. McCain: (Laughs) "Are we on the Straight Talk express? I'm not informed enough on it. Let me find out. You know, I'm sure I've taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position was. Brian, would you find out what my position is on contraception - I’m sure I’m opposed to government spending on it, I'm sure I support the president’s policies on it."
Q: "But you would agree that condoms do stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Would you say: 'No, we're not going to distribute them,' knowing that?"
Mr. McCain: (Twelve-second pause) "Get me Coburn's thing, ask Weaver to get me Coburn's paper that he just gave me in the last couple of days. I've never gotten into these issues before."
More......
McCain hasn't gotten into these issues before? He hasn't ever voted on this issue in the Senate? McCain wants to be president of our nation and he can't remember how he feels about specific issues? He has to ask his STAFF to research his "views?"
It is really sad to see a man self destruct in front of millions of people. And it is more then sad that McCain is one of the GOP's poster boys.
Today history is being made as Nancy Pelosi is sworn in as the first female Speaker of the House. As Speaker Pelosi has stated, she has broken through a marble ceiling that has been in place for 200 plus years. In addition today marks the day that Democrats take the reigns of power in D.C. which finally gives our nation what our founding fathers created: a system of government that has checks and balances.
Our nation has seen what happens when Republicans run all three branches of our government, we have seen first hand the misguided priorities, the corruption, the absolute abuse of power and in November, in a loud and clear voice, we removed the Republicans from power. Today is a new day, a day in which Democrats will begin to do the job that the nation has entrusted to them.
And as Speaker Pelosi is sworn into office, locally we will have our own official swearing in of the Santa Clara County Democratic Committee members who were elected in June 2006. Stop by the Sheriff's Auditorium, 55 Younger Street, San Jose (note: this is NOT our regular meeting location). Our meeting starts at 7 p.m., hope you can join us.
In case you're getting as aggravated as I am by how the spin-machine is getting to work on rehabilitating the Republican leadership in the face of the Foley scandal, MediaMatters.org is a comprehensive resource for debunking the dastardly deception underway.
Excellent points of debunking:
This is not some kind of Democratic Party "dirty trick"
The emails were not merely "over-friendly"
Gay men are NOT more likely than straight men to be abusers
There's a lot more, but those are good ones.
There comes a time when you wish, you REALLY wish, that what you are reading is some sort of horrid joke. How else are we supposed to deal with this gem from GOP Senator Frist:
Oct. 2, 2006, 3:01PM
Frist: Taliban should be in Afghan gov'tBy JIM KRANE Associated Press Writer
© 2006 The Associated PressQALAT, Afghanistan - U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Monday that the Afghan war against Taliban guerrillas can never be won militarily and called for efforts to bring the Islamic militia and its supporters into the Afghan government.
The Tennessee Republican said he learned from briefings that Taliban fighters were too numerous and had too much popular support to be defeated on the battlefield.
"You need to bring them into a more transparent type of government," Frist said during a brief visit to a U.S. and Romanian military base in the southern Taliban stronghold of Qalat. "And if that's accomplished, we'll be successful."
Afghanistan is suffering its heaviest insurgent attacks since a U.S.-led military force toppled the Taliban in late 2001 for harboring al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.
Of course he is now stating that he was "misquoted":
I'm currently overseas visiting our troops in Afghanistan, but I wanted to take a moment to address an Associated Press story titled, "Frist: Taliban Should Be in Afghan Gov't.""The story badly distorts my remarks and takes them out of context.First of all, let me make something clear: The Taliban is a murderous band of terrorists who’ve oppressed the people of Afghanistan with their hateful ideology long enough. America’s overthrow of the Taliban and support for responsible, democratic governance in Afghanistan is a great accomplishment that should not and will not be reversed.
Having discussed the situation with commanders on the ground, I believe that we cannot stabilize Afghanistan purely through military means. Our counter-insurgency strategy must win hearts and minds and persuade moderate Islamists potentially sympathetic to the Taliban to accept the legitimacy of the Afghan national government and democratic political processes.
National reconciliation is a necessary and an urgent priority ... but America will never negotiate with terrorists or support their entry into Afghanistan's government.
Do these people ever think before they talk? And how in the hell could Frist EVER consider bringing the Taliban back into ANY type of leadership in Afghanistan? Does Frist forget what the Taliban did to Afghanistan? The Taliban brutalized women, they would not allow TV, radio, they would not allow women to work, to go to school, men had to have beards. The Taliban was one of the worst governments our world has seen in our lifetime. And Frist thinks we need to work with them?
If only this was all some sort of sad, sick joke. If only..............
On Friday GOP Rep. Foley resigned from congress. Why did he resign? Because ABC had uncovered emails Foley had sent in 2005 to a then 16 year-old page, emails asking the page for his photograph, emails that were inappropriate at the very least. However, Foley's actions don't stop there, not by a long shot. ABC also had some instant messages that Foley had sent to another young page in 2003.
UPDATE 10/2/2006: Here is a timeline of Foleygate.
Be warned that the IM's are graphic in nature, and be prepared to be disgusted, especially given that Foley was co-chair of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children.
Were this the end of the story it would be bad enough, however this story takes a twist that is even more criminal, and it is representative of the GOP and their worship of power over all else, including our nation's children.
Take a minute and travel through what is quickly becoming a scandal that may well take down the highest-ranking GOP members of congress. More...below the fold
First, here are the emails that Foley sent the page in 2005
But Foley didn't stop there, and here are the transcripts of the im's Foley sent other pages in 2003 (be warned these are very graphic)
And how long has the GOP leadership known about Foley and his 2005 emails? From the NYT:
WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 - Top House Republicans knew for months about e-mail traffic between Representative Mark Foley and a former teenage page, but kept the matter secret and allowed Mr. Foley to remain head of a Congressional caucus on children's issues, Republican lawmakers said Saturday.
This is not the worst of all of this though, it seems that the pages were warned in 2001 to stay away from Foley, which means someone, somewhere, knew more then they are saying, yet they did nothing to protect these young pages.
As a matter of fact the GOP allowed Foley to have a private dinner with a page, knowing that Foley had "issues" with young boys:
Shimkus is toast. There's even video of Shimkus letting Foley talk to the pages AFTER the GOP knew Foley had page-issues.You'll recall that he is the Republican member of Congress who runs the Page Board, the group in charge of the pages. You'll also recall that tonight we learned on ABC News that GOP House staff warned the page class of 2001-2002 to stay away from ex-Rep. Mark Foley.
Then why is it that on June 6, 2002, well after the kids were warned to stay away from Foley, Shimkus notes approvingly that Foley has spent a lot of time with the Page Class of 2001-2002? This is Shimkus speaking at the page's goodbye ceremony,
MR. SHIMKUS: I thank my colleague. Now someone who spends a lot of time with you also, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), would like to say a thank you.(Note: We've confirmed in the Congressional Record that this is the exact transcript of the proceedings that day.)
The GOP staff knew Foley was a problem the year before, they warned the pages in 2001. Yet Shimkus, the next year is acknowledging that Foley was still permitted to spend "a lot of time" with the pages. In the name of God, why?
Oh, but it gets worse.
Foley then gets up in front of Shimkus and tells a special little story of how he took one male page to a private dinner in downtown Washington, DC. Put the page in his BMW and "cruised" - Foley's word - to dinner.
And now for the kicker.
Foley told the kid he had to get permission from his mom and he had to notify the Clerk of the House, Jeff Trandahl, the Republican staffer who works for Republican Speaker of the House Denny Hastert (R-IL). You'll also recall that Trandahl is the Clerk who joined Shimkus in 2005 to talk to Foley about the creepy email exchange with the first child who got this scandal started.
Oh and who else knew?
Besides the leaders, other lawmakers and Congressional officers who served on the board that oversaw the page program were aware of the e-mail messages, though the Democratic lawmaker who serves on the board, Representative Dale E. Kildee of Michigan, said Saturday that he had never been informed.
It seems that for political reasons, the one Democrat on the committee that oversaw the page program was never told of Foley's actions, a decision that is nothing short of irresponsible, and purely political.
There is no reason to allow the GOP to remain in power, and every reason in the world to make sure they are sent packing in November. There has never, in the history of our nation, been such a corrupt, unethical and incompetent political party as today's GOP.
As a side note, I have a 15 almost 16 year-old son. If anyone, man or woman, age 50 plus was emailing my son and asking for his picture, there is no way I would have dismissed that type of email as anything but inappropriate. For those who are the party in power to allow Foley to go unchecked cannot, nor will not, EVER be excused by this Mom, nor I doubt any mother in our nation.
I found this two year old post on buzzflash, and even though the post is dated, it still holds true.
Things you have to believe to be a Republican today:Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.
Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.
The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing UN resolutions against Iraq.
A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multinational corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.
Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.
The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.
If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.
A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our longtime allies, then demand their cooperation and money.
Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.
HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.
Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.
A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense.
A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.
Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.
The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving record is none of our business.
Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness, and you need our prayers for your recovery.
You support states' rights, which means Attorney General John Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have the right to adopt.
What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.
Feel free to pass this on.
Friends don't let friends vote Republican.
A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION
This is what was in my Inbox yesterday from Howard Dean, Chairman of the DNC. It's very instructive because it points out that the policies of the Bush Administration were already having a disastrous impact on the people of New Orleans before the Hurricane:
Almost half of all children in New Orleans lived in poverty -- before Hurricane Katrina.The callous and inept federal response to Hurricane Katrina revealed that, when faced with a crisis that experts had actually predicted, the Republican administration was utterly unprepared and unresponsive.
Meanwhile, the shameful foot-dragging since the storm on reconstruction and help to families shows the same lack of interest in solving real problems and saving lives. So far, the administration has gotten around to spending barely half of what Congress authorized.
The Republican administration's failures before and after the storms are linked by a common approach to the solemn responsibilities of government. Simply put: they aren't interested.
This Republican leadership's philosophy means that our government simply will not meet the needs of our people.
Not because it's impossible -- but because they don't believe it should.
And so we are left with each American having to do what he or she can to help.
There is too much to be done for individuals acting alone to fix everything, but until we achieve a change in leadership we all must step up to the plate.
1. One is asistance-oriented...pointing people toward a drive tog et people to donate new or used books to the Children's Defense Fund, an organization that's working to make sure that school libraries in Gulf Coast are well-stocked for returning students. Participate here.
[BTW, did you know this sad fact? Only 18% of New Orleans children had returned by the end of the last school year.]
2. The second is a site dedicated to making sure we don't forget how miserably the administration failed its own people and that we talk about how much work is left to be done.
Here is how Dean's email closes:
And we believe passionately in the responsibility of public service -- doing the hard, unglamorous work that comes with solving real problems that impact people's lives.With that sense of responsibility missing in our leaders today, we find ourselves in deep trouble.
Will Katrina's failure be enough to wake the American people from our stupor where we think we have no choice, and that things like the increasing divide between classes and the rising cost of living and the untenable nature of our national health care system (well, actually you might rightfully ask what health care system?!) simply "happen to us." Will we remember our disbelief and rage in the days following Katrina, and make the folk who think they did a "heckuva job" pay at the polls?
I not only hope so...I think so!
Hurricane Katrina hit one year ago, and I don't know about you, but it still feels pretty fresh. When I hear people talking about it, or see the scenes of devastation, or even get an email from the Humane Society of the U.S. talking about new laws working their way through the system to make sure people can bring their pets when they are evacuated, I still get a little emotional and teary-eyed. Being reminded of 9/11 still does that to me too, so these next two weeks which will include both the 1-year anniversary of Katrina and the 5-year anniversary of 9/11 are going to be tough for a lot of people, I think.
The email message I found in my inbox this morning from Hillary Clinton, marking Katrina's anniversary, is after the jump...
The message from Hillary says it pretty well:
It's been one year since Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, leaving unprecedented devastation in its wake. The nation watched with horror as floodwaters filled the streets of New Orleans. We saw residents breaking through to their roofs to get to safety and crowding into the Superdome just to survive.And we wondered how we could leave so many people up on those rooftops, wading through toxic water, and waiting in their homes to die. How could we have failed them so completely?
I remember traveling to Texas with my husband soon after the storm to visit with many of those who were evacuated. As I listened to their stories, the pain in their eyes was unmistakable. These were our brothers and sisters, our fellow Americans -- and our government failed them.
A year later, the results are still unacceptable. Contracts for rebuilding are going out to big corporations with ties to the administration while the people who live in the Gulf Coast are being shut out of opportunities. We saw people evicted from hotels and clamoring for housing while 10,000 trailers sat unused at an Arkansas airport. FEMA has already wasted $1.4 billion, with much of the money it spends still not getting to those who need it most.
Our government needs to step up and do a better job.
Katrina must be more than a tragedy -- it must be a call to justice. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." As we remember Katrina a year later, we must remind all Americans that justice matters, equality matters, the truth matters, and every single American life matters.
We need to build a better nation from the destruction left in Katrina's wake, one where we no longer leave our fellow citizens behind, not only when disaster strikes but from the everyday tragedies of poverty and injustice, from a lack of opportunity and the absence of hope.
We have much to do -- you and I -- to make sure those in power do what needs to be done. Let us make sure that there is hope, that there is a future out of the destruction. No one should ever be left out or left behind, so let us remember on this fateful anniversary and help build a better nation for every American.
So it's election season, and candidates are obliging by saying (or being discovered to have said long ago) some wacky things. And please don't miss that when I say "wacky" that's my sardonic way of saying "disturbing and vaguely crazy.")
I'm not even talking about Senator George Allen's use of the racial slur, macaca, that's already two weeks old. (Although I do urge you to click through on my Wikipedia link and learn more about the term as a racial slur specifically originating with Francophone colonials in Africa, and the citation of an interview where Allen indicates that his mother is a French colonial, born in Tunisia.)
No, I happen to be talking about Senate hopeful Katharine Harris in Florida saying that if non-Christians are elected they will "legislate sin." Source: Yahoo News
Or Senate hopeful Stephen Laffey in Rhode Island who has had to explaining why he wrote essays in his college newspaper 20 years ago about how all gays were "sickly and decrepit" and how he'd like to beat up Boy George...because it was funny, get it? Source: Yahoo News
I mean, I get that all people get caught saying things that come out wrong, that can be twisted. I think Francine Busby's faux pas about immigrants helping her campaign is a perfect example. However the Republicans spun her statement, "Everybody can help. You can all help. You don't need papers for voting, you don't need to be a registered voter to help", it is entirely plausible that she meant exactly what she says she meant: she was telling folks to aid her campaign, not encouraging people without the legal right to try to vote. Whichever side of stark party lines you fall, you're going to make your case.
But sometimes there aren't a lot of ways to spin something. You can't really spin "macaca." You can't really spin Harris statement: "If you're not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin." and her contention that "God is the one who chooses our rulers." You can't really spin Laffey's column that exclaims "YES, I want to punch your lights out, pal, and break your ribs."
You can claim you're talking about a non-existent mohawk hairstyle.
You can claim that since you were talking to a Christian publication, your comments are somehow OK.
You can claim that you thought gay-bashing was funny at the time.
But you're just trying to dress up your ugly outfit with a few distracting accessories.
A couple of weeks ago I pointed to a suspicious NY Times editorial that questioned why the trustees of Social Security and Medicare had not issued their annual report.
Partly at issue were some vacancies on the board of trustees. The Senate wanted new blood, Dubya wanted to re-appoint 2 of his cronies, even though such trustees have never before served more than one term.
So Dubya pulls another one of his evasive and power-grabbing moves and used the Senate's current recess as an opportunity to indeed re-appoint those two folks.
Just another typical move from Dubya that we as a public have grown unfortunately inured to. Imagine if Clinton had done such a thing! The outrage! The uproar!
Sigh.
All props to Russ Feingold for being willing to get up, stand up for our right to still live in a country that respects the rule of law forall citizens, even our President.
Feingold has submitted a resolution asking the Senate to censure Bush, as follows:
Feingold's resolution condemns Bush's "unlawful authorization of wiretaps of Americans within the United States without obtaining the court orders required" by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
I'm guessing Representative Murtha would join in if he could, given this scathing article at the HuffPo of Dubya's claims about Iraq vs. the truth.
So come on Dems...get with the program.
Is this a democracy or a dictatorship?
Do we value our diverse population and its diverse view or lockstep, blind loyalty?
Are you sick of people thinking the Democrats have to be as narrow as the Republicans if we want to be successful?
Dan Gillmor quite accurately blames not just the Bushies, who are after all only power-hungry meglomaniacs that society and the world have seen before, but the supposedly upstanding citizens in Congress who allow them to succeed at their various power-grabbing schemes:
This is particularly (and depressingly) true of some members of the Republican majority in Congress. Men and women who swore to uphold the Constitution are treating Bush more like a king than what he actually is: an elected (by a tiny majority) president who has essentially decreed himself to be above the law. They should be ashamed of their dereliction of duty, but they are indifferent, or worse.
Perhaps you've thought it was time to talk impeachment since the SCOTUS handed Dubya the presidency in 2000. But many other people are starting to join that group, slowly but surely, as more and more comes to light about how lightly Dubya takes our Constitution, the concept of the rule of law, and well, the truth.
Elizabeth Holtzman, A former member of Congress who sat on the House Judiciary Committee during Nixon's impeachment, writes a long, calm, rational explanation of why and how Dubya should suffer the same just fate as Nixon in this piece for the Nation.
Key concluding statement:
As awful as Watergate was, after the vote on impeachment and the resignation of President Nixon, the nation felt a huge sense of relief. Impeachment is a tortuous process, but now that President Bush has thrown down the gauntlet and virtually dared Congress to stop him from violating the law, nothing less is necessary to protect our constitutional system and preserve our democracy.
But don't miss reading the whole thing, with all the justification that leads up to that powerful concluding statement.
The Detroit Free Press has a succinct editorial praising Ford motor Co. for standing up to the bigoted American Family Association and their threatened boycott (because Ford advertises in publications targeted at gay consumers.)
You know, I'm not anti- the mere concept of a boycott. I just recently posted a list of companies to shop at in place of other stores. But when I choose to shop at Costco instead of Wal*Mart it has nothing to do with who their customers are or who they open their doors to. It has to do with how they treat their workers and where they donate their money.
Hat tip: AmericaBlog.
Despite how much time I spend wallowing in the misdeeds, misstatements and misguided principles of the Bush Administration, there are still some things for me, and all Democrats, to be thankful for.
-I'm thankful that people seem to be catching on and breaking away from partisan, group-think. Poll numbers tell the story. Not only has Dubya's approval rating sunk to ever-new lows, but people are starting to believe that deception and dishonesty rule the day in the White House. You might argue that they're figuring this out about 1 year too late, and I understand those feelings. But just like in other times of scandal, the American people want to think the best of their leaders. It's hard for us to let the worst of this sink in, because there is an optimism and pride and positivity that is an essential part of the American psyche. But once you push us over the edge..watch out!
-I'm thankful that the same veil has dropped from the eyes of Californians and that we saw Ah-nold's "Special" election for what it was: unnecessary, expensive, and a naked power grab because the guy does not know how to actually achieve any goals.
-I'm thankful that Democrats in Government are starting to not only wake from their stupor, but re-claim their pride in our Democratic values.
-I'm thankful that the press, while taking its own blows lately, has also woken from a stupor. Now, we can only hope that, along with not letting compassion fatigue drive the hurricane survivors from our mind, that the press too doesn't sink back into complacency and spoon-fed White house soundbites.
In general, the sleeping giant of American pride in our country, global position (or, at least what that position used to be) and principles has been woken too.
And I am thankful that we have many opportunities in the next few years to reclaim that position, rededicate ourselves to those principles and revive that pride!
Former LA Times editor is happy to have someone else on the hot seat I guess (Kinsley was at the very center of last year's eruption over the lack of women Op-Ed columnists.)
He writes an amusing little recap of the Plame outing and subsequent shenanigans. [Reg. Req'd.]
Of course if you prefer your PlameGate news on the serious side, then get a load of this from Echidne of the Snakes:
Matthew Cooper: "There is no question. I first learned about Valerie Plame working at the CIA from Karl Rove."
Further: If a trial goes ahead, Cooper said he would name Rove as his source of the information.
Can a third shoe drop? Soon, please.
I am beginning to think that the Bushies don't get that if you don't pay one way, you pay another. Well, actually I'm not just beginning to think it, it's been pretty clear from the start.
They don't seem to get that you can't just keep reducing tax revenues from the wealthiest people in the country, while expenses, both expected and unexpected mount. Especially if the economy is not replacing those revenues in other ways as I guess was their initial hope. It's called basic math...and I need to pay attention to it every month when I collect my client payments, and pay my business's bills.
And the current crop of Bush II people obviously are way too cynical to believe in Bush I's concept of 1000 points of light...that the private sector can take care of our country's problems through the kindness of their hearts. No, the Bushies seem to think that even when our hearts our moved by the sights we saw on TV during the aftermath of Katrina, the hearts of the richest people are a little colder and smaller and need more financial incentive to give.
How else can you explain the clause they wrote into the Katrina aid package that allows Katrina donations to be deducted at about a 100% rate? (That's double how such donations are usually deducted.)
On the face of it it's easy to think...how nice. They're letting people give and give and give. But just a slightly deeper look makes you realize...that then they will be able to take and take and take when tax time comes around.
Well, just listen to what one rich guy has to say about it:
"I just keep thinking there's got to be a catch, they can't really be doing this," said C. Kemmons Wilson Jr., a Memphis businessman whose father was the founder of Holiday Inns Inc.
Call me cynical, some do, but I think this is just more of the "Starve the Beast" strategy of the ultra-cons. Starve the government until we can't depend on it for anything. It's their dream come true.
That other shoe has dropped and Scooter Libby was indicted today (and subsequently resigned.) Meanwhile Rove is still hanging in limbo...not indicted (yet) but not off the hook. And getting this close to the Vice-President can't feel very good to the White House crew.
Commentary around the blogosphere:
Anything by Andrew Sullivan
This and in fact most posts over at Talking Points Memo.
Or, just check out Memeorandum, which is chock full o' indictment talk.
Bush said "reforming" (read: gutting) Social Security was a major priority. But as times got tough for him, it's sort of fallen by the wayside.
Bush said finding out who leaked Valerie Plame's identity was totally unacceptable, and that he really really wanted answers. and that if anyone in his administration was found to have talked about a covert agent they'd be fired. But as times got tough for aides in the White House, he changed the criteria, and no one believes he ever really fought to find out what happened there.
Then there's the infamous case of Osama bin Laden...someone Dubya wants, dead or alive, or someone Dubya doesn't think too much about?
But never fear ladies and gentlemen, I think we've finally found an issue that Bush thinks is really worth fighting for. In fact, he may hand down his very first veto over it. What's the issue? Protecting his right to let the CIA torture away if he thinks it's necessary.
Good to know.
Source: NY Times
The news today is just chock full of corruption, anky-panky, greed, you name it.
First, Corruption...the Harriet Miers edition:
Seems that Miers' law firm certainly benefitted from Dubya's campaign activities. Now, it's not that he paid a campaign lawyer, it's how much. Apparently it was really really a lot. Don't you feel a teeny bit uncomfortable having someone who's been Dubya's personal lawyer on the Supreme Court, when the Supreme Court decides things having to do with presidential authority? I do.
Also seems that Miers' mom got paid out for a piece of land by the state of Texas... at about 10x its worth. Read the story. Sounds fishy...or perhaps just business as usual for Dubya and his cronies.
Second, just for good measure, here's a non-Miers incident... more on the saga of Jack Abramoff
Oh, and if you want a good recap of the whole nasty Plame outing affair, here's one. Although I of course recommend you read Arianna Huffington over at the Huffington Post to get your daily dose of scathing outrage.
And he's taking it to the college campus, urging students to be the ones who make a difference, just as college students made a difference in decades past.
Having seen Edwards recently on The Daily Show and read some of what he's up to I have to say I find him much more appealing now than I found him during the 2004 campaign.
When Edwards points out the gaps not just in income, but in assets, and further explains why such a gap is bad, I think he's hit on something very important.
[For the record, his catch phrase can be boiled down to the fact that income is how you sustain yourself, but assets are how you get ahead...and without assets non-white lag in starting businesses, in continuing their education etc. etc.]
The Edwards effort does articulate a vision, and exposes a stark difference between the parties. Republican still believe in a form of aristocracy. If you do everything to benefit those already at the top, then because they are the best and smartest of society, the benefits will eventually trickle down to the rest of us, as those few privleged see fit. And anyone who belongs up there at those rarified heights will get themselves up there.
Meanwhile Democrats do believe that our society does better overall when we help all. That help isn't just governmental, a big part of Edwards plan is for students to donate their time and energy to advocacy and activism. But the government should, at the very least, be fair.
I'm liking what he has to say. And after the nation got a big window into what happens when a government abdicates its responsibilities to its citizens after Katrina, I think more and more people will be inspired by his efforts too.
As if Dubya wasn't feeling the heat enough for appointing marginally qualified (and I'm being kind there) cronies to high-ranking positions in his administration, The New Republic has Harriet Miers [Reg. Req'd], Dubya's SCOTUS pick, tapped as one of his 15 worst crony appointments.
As an SCC DP buddy said: "I guess his 'exhaustive search' required him to get up and look up and down the hall outside his office door."
PS-does anyone else feel sorry for the poor little country, Liechtenstein? Everybody's always using an ambassadorship there as the appropriate place to put incompetents with lots of money and loyalty. Of course, Dubya's list of those types of folks would probably overpopulate Liechtenstein.
So, when are they going to charge Michael Brown for perjuring himself in front of Congress by claiming Governor Blanco didn't request aid for New Orleans?
But that's just not the worst of it , bad though it is. The worst of it is reading this concise and clear NY Times examination of what FEMA's role is vs. what Brown seemed to think it was.
Double-Feh.
Yes, those "news reports" conveniently packaged and sent to TV stations around the country before the election last year have officially been deemed to be "propaganda" paid for by out tax dollars. But you knew that didn't you?
And so was the deal with Armstrong Williams.
And yes, it's illegal.
But apparently the decision comes with no penalty.
What's up with that?
This is just gross. Really really gross.
The Bush Administration, who already proved in the Katrina aftermath how deeply they do not care about American people who don't look and think just like them, is now using the disaster as an excuse to suspend regulations put in place to protect those same Americans.
Easing regulations on wages and fairness in hiring is not the answer to helping the Gulf Coast get back on its feet, as the NY Times eloquently agrees. It does help the same kind of corporations that Dubya and his cronies are always helping.
Feh.
Wow.
DeLay has stepped down as House Leader, but not from Congress.
Since the Republicans like to keep the line-which-must-not-be-crossed a moving target, look for DeLay to hold on to the bitter end.
The other day I saw a bumper sticker on an SUV: Visualize No Liberals. Next to an American flag of course.
Now, let me tell you about my step-dad's bumperstickers: Kick the bums out with a picture of a donkey kicking an elephant in front of the capitol building. And Take back our country, vote Democratic.
It so perfectly illustrates the difference between liberal and conservative values. We want to keep them out of political power. They want to eliminate us. Kill us.
Is it going to far to wonder whether in a culture that seems to thrive on war and violence you gain more mind share by casual talk of annihilation than of exercising our most basic American rights?
I remembered this bumper sticker today because we have yet another wingnut casually going on-air and making highly inappropriate statements. First it was that nutty Pat Robertson talking about assassinating Chavez, now it's Bill O'Reilly saying he wished that Katrina had flooded the UN Building, and that he would NOT have saved anyone in there.
[UPDATED: Thanks to Keith for catching the all important omission of the word 'NOT' in the sentence above.]
Nice, very nice.
Will this rhetoric still work in a post-Katrina world? Has the disastrous aftermath of the disaster finally extinguished our appetite for meaningless demonization of liberals now that the true face of "compassionate conservatism" has been unmasked? Frank Rich thinks maybe it has.
Why has Katrina had such a galvanizing impact on people, even more than Cindy Sheehan's Camp Casey movement?
Because we watched people dying day-by-day on our TV screens. Right in front of our eyes. They don't have to show us the bodies being recovered now...we saw those people become merely bodies. Sure, I remember coming home in the early 90s and watching the start of the Gulf War on TV, and being amazed that I was actually watching war happen live on TV. But those were still distant shots of anonymous bombs blowing up buildings...no people in sight from the vantage point of CNN cameras.
This was different. This was slow death captured for us all to see. Mothers with babies. The elderly and ailing. Families with children.
And conservative values require them to take these as their first steps: blame the victims, create carefully-crafted photo ops, choose but one fall-crony, preserve the tax cuts for the rich, immediately loosen environmental restrictions (while blaming environmentalists) and waive labor protections.
It's ugly.
And it's clear for all to see.
See they think employees should be able to bring their guns to work if they want to.
Or to church.
Or anywhere people are gathered.
I'd just feel a teensy bit safer knowing that companies have the right to have a "no guns at work" policy, wouldn't you?
UPDATED: (Forgot I wanted to add this thought) Especially since it's the companies who are often sued and held liable when something bad happens at work. See, I can be pro-business too!
So the shoe dropped and Bush appointed Bolton to the Ambassadorship via a "recess appointment."
Recess appointments exist for a reason, so what makes this an abuse of power?
Simple: It has nothing to do with Bolton's appropriateness for the job, which is questionable. It is that it is clear there are serious, I mean really serious, open issues about Bolton. Issues like did he lie to Congress; did he abuse employees; did he himself abuse power?
Dubya feels he doesn't have to "stoop" to answer to such inquiries.
That means he thinks he is above such little concepts as "advise and consent" and "rule of law" and the like...you know, things in our Constitution.
Sad days indeed.
Thomas Friedman can be a bit of a blowhard sometimes, but this essay on how America has lost the willingness to do what it takes to succeed long-term, in favor of short-term, selfish gains, is a winner.
Frankly I think the Lance Armstrong analogy is not the strongest part of the essay...but trying to wake us up to our own folly is valuable indeed.
Dubya clearly had some clever advice on the nominee. He picked someone kind of stealthy...not too extreme, not a name on everyone's lips, and wouldn't ya know it...a middle-aged white guy.
For a surprise, read Matt Yglesias as he makes the case for why it makes good sense and good law to take into account a judge's "identity" (meaning race, gender etc.) Most of the major male poli-bloggers avoid the gender issue like hell...especially those on the left who love to be the grand poobahs, but know that their liberal credentials are supposed to make them sensitive to women's concerns.
Apparently retiring Sandra Day O'Connor agrees saying that Roberts is "good in every way, except he's not a woman."
Read on for more random pithy thoughts on the nominee and reaction to him.
What has cracked me up is the outraged and shocked reaction to the fact that nominee Roberts is on the record has arguing to overturn Roe v. Wade. OK, be outraged if you want to. But, even if he argued that out of belief, not just because it was his job as a government lawyer, you're shocked that he's anti-choice? Do you honestly and truly think Bush is going to find someone who's a staunch choice supporter? I mean face it right now, Dubya will nominate and eventually confirm someone who is more conservative than you or me. But Ezra Klien as a good grasp on what we should still be expecting from our Senate, like a real, thorough inquiry. (Ezra also has a nice set of links to other people posting substantive information about Roberts.)
Other than that, Dubya has apparently chosen someone who hasn't had much of a sweeping, constitutional nature to decide. The NY Times has a rather dry assessment of Roberts' positions, and none of them sound particularly scary (nor encouraging of course.) The Bull Moose concurs.
Of course, he's not right-wing enough for some, including that psycho-wingnut, Ann Coulter. But of course we can't be sure she's not going all crazy about Roberts as a clever stratagem to lull we liberals into a false sense of comfort with him. You know, "if Coulter hates him he can't be that bad." Personally I don't think what that completely irrational hateful person thinks should influence what you thin k one way or the other!
Wait and see. That seems to be the only thing to do...the Senate hearings are important stuff.
Oh and just in case you want to read something truly filthy, but funny about Roberts, in that "I can't believe he said that" kind of way, Google yourself some Rude Pundit. I'm left pretty much alone on this blog, but I fear if I linked to RP directly it might be too much even for my laidback SCC DP superiors :)
Trey Ellis over at the Huffington Post has a wish list for Democrats.
He wants us to issue a manifesto of sorts so that no one can ever again say they don't know what we stand for. He gives some helpful suggestions on these topics:
1. Iraq
2. Terrorism
3. The Economy and the Deficit
4. The Environment
5. Health Care
6. Ethics
7. Social Security
Here's my thing: do you really think people don't know where we stand on heath care (everyone should have it) the economy (roll back tax cuts for the wealthy) Social Security (mend it, don't end it) etc.?
What they don't believe is that we always act in accordance with our beliefs.
In addition, I think Ellis is living in a dream world to think we can simply avoid addressing in any such "manifesto" our views on social issues. And his avoidance of mentioning anything about it just shows wimpiness.
I am not embarrassed that Democrats value diversity; that they think all people really should have equal rights, and so on. We should make a point of it, not tiptoe around it.
What does everyone else think?
In the aftermath of the London bombings, here are a couple of choice reactions:
Like Fox News journalist John Gibson saying "if only it had happened to the French!" Souce NevOn.
Or, again Fox News', Brit Hume saying his first thought upon hearing of the London bombings was "Hmm, time to buy..." Future contracts that is. Source: MediaMatters.org.
Which is just as revolting as Rudolph Giuliani's claim that his first thought upon hearing about the WTC being hit by terrorists was "Thank God George Bush is our President." Source: CNN.
Really guys? Those were your first thoughts.
Feh.
Today I went over the hill and watched most of the Half Moon Bay 4th of July Parade. It was a good old fashioned parade with mostly regular folks, some of who were on what barely qualified as floats, but most of whom walked or rode their bikes or drove in cars. There were lots of dogs with red white and blue bandanas and collars, and some decorated stroller from the Coastside mother's groups.
I wore red white and blue myself.
But still I feel nostalgic for another time when I felt that America did more for the good of the world and its own people...that we were always striving to be the shining example...the beacon to those seeking freedom and opportunity.
Trey Ellis at the Huffington Post articulates my nostalgia perfectly in this poignant 4th of July post.
Democratic activists: I think it's important that we not feel like we're fighting to win this election or that legislative battle...we're fighting to make America even better, and to return to the core values of America that were once taken for granted by us and by much of the world.
Only Nicholas Kristof is counting the days since Dubya has bothered to utter the word "Sudan." It's 141, if, like me, you like numbers.
Kristof eloquently answers the question, asked by one of his readers (who displayed the thoughtful manner typical of his kind by calling Kristof a "liberal twit"): why should we "care" about the rest of the world?
There I said it. But, what do I mean?
I mean that the media allows the President to sort of get by with snarky jokes, throwing out pitches and discussions about his damn iPod.
On Friday when I was heading down to the Convention I saw a newsstand at the airport. there on every paper's front page was a picture of the President throwing out the pitch at the Nationals game.
Seriously, this is front page news? This is the most important thing you can find to take up literally half of the above the fold print space?
I wonder how many servicepeople, either our own or Iraqi died that day?
And while we all get convinced that Dubya is a "real" country music fan...because, you know, "real" Americans like country music, how many more people died in the Sudan genocide?
Yes, yes. I know. I sound very dour and humorless.
Well, he's our President, not a late night talk show host. I prefer he took his job and our country's problems a little more seriously.
And that the media at least tried to make him do so.
There. I said it. That's my rant for the day.
The last word on Terri Schiavo?
State investigators have spent time and taxpayer dollars following up on accusations from numerous unnamed sources (and Terri's father) that Michael Schiavo denied Terri care and even abused her.
The NY Times reports that the investigators have come up with nothing, not even denied dental care.
Do you think this will be the last word?
Yeah, me either.
I think the Republicans made a major miscalculation inserting themselves into this personal situation. And I also think the Democrats shouldn't be afraid of pointing it out.
DNC Chairman Howard Dean told a relevant story this weekend at the convention.
Go to the extended entry to read more about it...
Dean told a story of meeting someone in Mississippi who self-identified as "pro-life." But what that meant to her is that she didn't want to get an abortion, and she wouldn't want her daughter to get an abortion. But she wasn't so sure she wanted to tell her neighbor down the street what to do about it.
Well, to Democrats that sounds like someone who is pro-choice, don't you think?
So, maybe it's time to stop positioning it as life vs. choice. It's about rights.
Who's got the right to make your personal medical decisions? You and your doctor, or the United States Congress? Well, when it came to Terri Schiavo's life, the people definitely think it's not up to Congress. The people saw that life or death medical decision as something inherently private...tragic, but private.
The Republicans overstepped their bounds, and the fact is that they're overstepping their bounds on the abortion issue too.
And I'm not afraid to say so.
Well, conservative bloggers tried to stir up a storm, implying that the infamous Republican memo identifying the Schiavo case a great political opportunity was a fake, but turns out they were as full of it as Drudge on a good day.
See, by his own admission, the memo came from Republican Senator Mel Martinez's office.
Of course they've found their fall guy, a legal counsel who has been fired. But why did it take this long for the truth to come out?
Why? Because the Democrats have found their spine and are not backing down on what's right...ever.
According to the NY Times, Dubya is enjoying showing his "impishly fun" side more publicly in this, his second term.
Does reading this make anyone else feel slightly nauseated?
This is not a good sense of humor. It's no more in good taste than when he was joking about finding WMDs under seat cushions, while hundreds died. It's no more in good taste than his joking about the elite being his "base" while more children fell under the poverty line.
And one example of his "impishness" is that he tells a female Belgian television correspondent that she has "great eyes"? That's not impish; it's inappropriate.
No wonder Ah-nold has converted into a right-wing stalwart on Dubya's behalf...they seem to have something in common.
Thanks to The Moderate Voice for providing a very thorough wrap-up of various viewpoints around the Internet.
UPDATED: This post would not be complete without including this scathing, scary post by the brilliant James Wolcott.
RE_UPDATED: Here are a couple more links, particularly relevant now that Congress has passed their precedent-setting legislation: Atrios and Matthew Yglesias.
I do confess I'm confused: when I think of past cases I've been aware of through friends/family where they decided to take someone off of life support, I did no think that in every case the person had a living will. I thought that at some point the family had to decide. So, is the problem here is that although the husband is Terry's next-of-kin and can make the decision, since there is no living will her parents can challenge it in the courts? That if the family cannot come to agreement, the courts are always an option?
I'm also unclear as to what people think Terry's husband is supposed to gain by this...other than honestly feel like he adhered to her wishes? He's already moved on to a new life. If he was concerned about a financial burden (He's not because she's considered indigent and her care is covered by the hospice) he could just turn her over to her parents. What is his motivation then? Just cold-blooded? That seems very hard to believe.
Finally, horse's mouths:
Michael Schiavo on Nightline (transcript).
Terri's father on Hardball (transcript.
OK, forgive me. I somehow thought our deficits, and our war, and our border security, and our health care crisis, and on and on and on...I somehow thought all of those issues were top of the mind for our government officials.
I thought wrong.
Right now they're thinking about steroids in baseball.
And sexy moves in cheerleading.
And most disgusting of all...carting a woman in a vegetative state from Florida to Washington DC and putting her on public display...all to thwart the repeated rulings from the judiciary that this is not a political football, not a situation for legislators to play around with to prove points about abortion.
Lots of bloggers have eloquent things to say about this, from left-to-right on the political spectrum:
LaShawn Barber lets one of her readers do the talking. (Even though I think LaShawn actually disagrees.)
Oliver Willis quotes Neal Boortz.
Sometimes it's hard to keep up. You have a couple of days where life intrudes...you know, where you have things to do outside the house and (gasp!) away from the computer.
You come back, and there seems to be an explosion of things going on in the political landscape. How to choose just one outrage per day?
So, this weekend I'm going for "theme" posts. Links to a variety of stories you should be aware of.
Day 122's theme is Republican Values:
1. Slactivist goes after Justice Scalia's rather questionable values in this post. Scalia...the practicing Roman Catholic who thinks executing minors is peachy-keen.
2. The Daily Kos goes after the right wing's propensity to, as he puts it "make stuff up" in this post. Pretty sure lying is on the list of basic no-nos.
3. A personal fave: Armstrong Williams...you've just been exposed for surreptitiously taking six-figures to tout a presidential policy in your ostensibly journalistic national column...what are you going to do? Well, rather than go to Disneyland, Williams is going to get a brand new talk radio show in NYC. If you can make it there...and so on. That damn liberal media, huh?
These are major, mind-blowing moral failings along the lines of torture, voter intimidation and maintaining tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of children...the usual Republican fare...but they are examples how in little ways every day some Republican somewhere is living the dream: that values are for other people!
The Death Penalty is one of the hardest issues for me. Emotionally I understand the desire for punishment and even revenge. Emotionally I'm willing to concede that it seems like some people forfeit their right to life by their actions. But my personal ethos doesn't think that:
a) it's right to kill in response to killing
b) it's a deterrent
c) it's fairly adjudicated
d) a government should be killing its citizenry as policy
e) it speaks well for our nation to be the last Western industrialized nation to be killing its citizens as punishment.
I acknowledge I'm in the minority on this issue. I don't make it a litmus test for candidate support.
This Supreme Court decision makes me glad. Not sure everyone, even many Democrats will agree.
What do you think?
I know, I know. The torture thing is so over now that we've re-elected Bush (and therefore apparently approved every single Iraq War action) confirmed Gonzales and refused to allow ourselves even the appearance of an uproar over the continuing ugly truths emerging from Gitmo and Iraq.
And I know some righties out there are going to say this proves how much I hate America that I link to a post that exposes the bad things that have been done in the name of we, proud Americans.
But, you see, to me this post is required reading for those who love America. If we allow ourselves, our government and our military to lose our moral compass in this way, where is the next way station on the slippery slope?
I am concerned because as Digby eloquently closes his post: "...it is only a matter of time before internal political enemies become a threat. And then it will be us."
And See the Forest exposes just one example of how this is already a right-wing tactic here.
Gotta move toward numerals as the days move into triple digits :)
Anyway, thanks to See the Forest for pointing me to this LeftCoaster run-down that Dubya waited until late Friday to release.
Now remember these cuts are needed because Bush refuses to give up the idea of making his tax cuts for the wealthy permanent. These tax cuts are needed because Bush wants to phase-out Social Security and has no way to pay for the gap. These tax cuts are needed because Bush took us to war for ever-more mysterious reasons, the latest being democracy...something he doesn't value nearly as much here at home.
As both the LeftCoaster and Paul Krugman make abundantly clear: Bush really is willing to take food from the mouth of babes, health care and benefits from our veterans and elderly.
Make no mistake: this reflects Bush's values. and it reflect Republican values.
I just don't think it represents American values.
You still need Democrats to do that!
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts served in Reagan's first term and on the editorial boards of the WSJ and National Review. He used to be quoted liberally by Limbaugh and Liddy on conservative talk-radio.
I don't think those guys will be quoting this column.
Roberts talks about the odd rise of condemnation for a "liberal" media that is actually non-existent, the switch between liberals and conservatives on the issue of reliance on governmental power, and past political movements that were also based on delusion and hate.
Strong words from a conservative who feels the neo-cons are doing some real damage, and for years to come.
Thanks to CB for the link.
Well, new RNC Chair Ken Mehlman is wasting no time in pursuing the strategy to create a "durable Republican majority."
Solving some of our economic problems? Helping more lower and middle class families join that mythic "ownership society"?
Rebuilding our foreign policy so that Americans can travel abroad again without feeling they need to hide their blue passport?
How about even devising new ways to fight terrorism abroad and at home...prioritizing national security and military readiness?
No, no and no.
It's guns, gays and abortion.
Don't believe me. Think that lefty propaganda. I'm just quoting the guy.
"We can deepen the GOP by identifying and turning out Americans who vote for president but who often miss off-year elections and agree with our work on behalf of a culture of life, our promoting marriage, and a belief in our Second Amendment heritage," Mehlman said, referring to the party's opposition to abortion, gay marriage and gun control.
Oh, and did you know that Mehlman believes that prioritizing such issues doesn't mean Bush is pushing an ever-more conservative agenda, but is simply appealing to a "wide spectrum of voters."
And did you also know that if you go to church you must be ripe for registering as a Republican. You know, all part of their framing that God must be a Republican.
People do not care about torture.
At least people who have hitched their wagon to the right-wing wagon don't.
Frank Rich writes a scathing commentary about how the media is letting the torture scandal die with hardly a minute spent on it, how the military is going after the order-takers, not the order-givers...and how some day people will "learn" what happened and be horrified.
I beg to differ. I have heard more crap justifying torture than I care to...including some in the comments on this blog.
The fact is that those who follow today's right-wing credo are willing, nay eager to justify torture.
Oh, yes, it's war...these things always happen. I'm just naive. worse yet, I'm un-American and care more for those terrorists than I do for Americans.
On & on.
You name it, the justifications are pouring out. Not just from Alberto "I'll find every rationale for torture that I can, yet still get confirmed" Gonzales but from bloggers and regular people who just don't want to know.
According to Rich, if they do suddenly "know" they will be horrified.
I don't think so. Bush has forever changed what it means to be American.
It now means we can sink to the level of any enemy, not strive to rise above.
It now means we are a dog-eat-dog society.
It now means democracy is but a theory, hard to put into proper practice...too hard to really do anything about.
It now means that free speech is only judged in the eye (or ear, as it were) of the most rigid, extreme beholder. Don't think so, check out Dobson on SpongeBob...frickin' unbelievable. (Courtesy of Jeff Jarvis.)
Did I say "feh" in my last post? I still mean it. Feh and double-Feh.
One of my regular rants about this election has had to do with the Democratic inability to be black and white enough.
Bush? How many times did you hear this: "I don't agree with him on everything, but at least I know where he stands!."
OK, leave aside how much BS that is. Just leave it aside. it does not matter. Because people really aren't going to sit there and listen to your quibbles about Bush's lack of convictions if they don't know your convictions.
I have tried pretty hard to get in a circular firing squad over the election...given how popular Bush was but a year before the election I'm pretty impressed with how close it came. And I think any of those Democratic "consultants" and advisers" who dared to publicly carp and complain and second-guess n the last weks and months of the campaign should be booted from the Party...Donna Brazile, you are just one example, but a good one.
And I especially don't want to tear down Kerry, who wasn't my preferred candidate, but gained a lot of my respect throughout the campaign.
But I agree he was unable to articulate his core values and beliefs as simply and unequivocally as i would have liked.
Errol Morris thinks that is why Bush is being inaugurated this week. Can't say I disagree with anything in his OpEd piece here [Reg. Req'd.]
One more thought on this: Barbara Boxer is unabashedly and unashamedly liberal. She won her California Senate race by a larger margin than Kerry won in California. She smashed her opponent even in conservative areas.
I believe people think the same thing about her: "I don't agree with everything she says, but at least I know where she stands."
Convictions. They need to be on full display. They need to be clear. Then you can start tearing down the other guy.
No secret I'm a Clark fan, so when he steps up and articulates fine Democratic values so well, I have to give him a plug, and you the opportunity to see Clark in action.
Thanks to It Affects You for the link to the video clip.
Clark comments on the tsnuami relief effort, but mostly let's it rip when discussing Alberto Gonzales and his qualifications (or lack thereof) to be Attorney General.
Hearing a straight arrow military guy talk about why we abide by the Geneva Conventions and the ramifications of not doing so puts it all in very clear perspective.
This is a busy day on Capitol Hill.
First we have the confirmation hearing of Alberto Gonzales for Attorney General. You know Gonzales...he's the guy who had to sign something to "prove" he doesn't support torture. And yeah, the issue was in question.
And I just love the immoral folks on the left and the right who say that Democrats shouldn't take a firm stand against torture, because it will make us look weak!
Seriously, what are we coming to? I'm with Pandagon. Not This. Not Ever.
Then, all hail Senator Barbara Boxer, our very own landslide winner who, riding on the wave of her huge win in November, has stepped up to sign on to the Congressional Black Caucuses protest of the election. This action, while not changing the outcome of the election by any stretch of even the most fevered imagination, does force a debate in both houses on our election processes and procedures.
And anyone who doesn't think that's worth doing, given the anomalies and irregularities that occurred, doesn't give a fig for our democracy.
C-SPAN is there for you real junkies who want to watch it live. You crazy political junkies, you!
Talk Left with links to real-time blogging of the Gonzales hearings.
"Why are Democrats wringing their hands so much about Dubya's victory and considering changing basic values and philosophies of the party? (e.g. an
article I read about Dems considering softening pro-choice stance). When Clinton won a second term did the Republicans change their tune at all? Move more to the left? NO! They fought tooth and nail throughout that second term and came back with a vengeance and are now more right wing than ever."
Exactly right, BlogSister!
When I see this crap about abandoning our long-held values and core beliefs, I can't help but understand the criticism thrown at our Party.
What's next? We decide tax cuts for the top 1% and service cuts for the middle class are the route to a stronger economy?
Suck it up, Democrats! Don't turn Bush's slim (if you trust it) 50.8% victory means our values and policies need conservatization! (Yes, I know, not an actual word...I'm coining a new term, okay?) They need Marketing!
Just a couple of stories today are answering this very question:
Republican values help our government look for ways to justify torture.
An interesting point in this NY Times editorial is that civilian management of the Pentagon has been turned on its head, with the civilian lawyers and leaders being out of control, and the military lawyers trying to remain the voices of reason and restraint.
Republican values want to shield their members from having to have values.
We all know how the Republicans pushed through a rules change to protect their leader, DeLay, from having to step down if he was indicted. That wasn't enough for them, though. Now they want to make starting ethical inquiries harder to even start, and they want to push out their own guy who dared to state that he would pursue inquiries against DeLay just like he would against anyone else. Shocking! Trying to be impartial? What is he thinking? We all know how that turned out for Arlen Spector.
So, fine Republican values at work:
-Justifying torture.
-Refusing to listen to military authorities on how to handle military issues. (So, a few of our servicemen might get tortured now? It's all in the name of fighting terrorism, right?)
-Lowering the standards of behavior for our elected officials.
-Doing so even while claiming the moral high ground.
-And making any who dare to be impartial, non-partisan, or simply fair outcasts in your party.
I feel all warm and fuzzy, don't you?
You can fully expect me to harp on the whole "values" thing for a long, long while. It's part of the Republican spiel that I find personally offensive. So, here's my latest values rant:
Years ago I was interviewing for a job at a company that delivers PPV movies to hotel rooms. As the guy interviewing me gave me a tour of their facilities we came to a room where they serve all the movies, and where they track usage. he made an off-hand comment that shocked me. He said, "you can always tell when there's a Christian Convention at a hotel, because the porn take-rates go way up!"
I was not only shocked at the anecdote itself, but that he would say it to me, not knowing me, nor my religious affiliation.
Now, perhaps we're getting over-personal here, but, though not a porn fan myself, I don't concern myself much with those who are. To each their own, you know?
But there are those who do not want each to have "their own" if it includes content they feel personally uncomfortable with. There are those who would like censorship to become far more prevalent than it is. They are becoming more and more organized, and in this Administration, wielding more and more power.
And the stench of hypocrisy lingers over the entire initiative because, no surprise to those of us who refuse to buy the "red state=moral" argument, turns out the red states are exactly as likely to partake of naughty, smutty, "to each their own" kind of content as blue states.
Not only that, but some of Dubya's high-rolling fans, supporting him with money and entire news organizations, are raking it in from such enterprises.
We need look no further than Fox News being owned by the same guy who own the Fox channel, home to the crassest reality television shows ever.
But if you want more details, a recent WaPo article explains (and backs up) the hypocritical truth.
I know George Lakoff is the darling of most people in the Party. He's the guy who is trying to train Democrats to be as disciplined in their use of language and "framing" of the issues as the Republicans are, often with the help of Frank Luntz.
Here's a pundit who thinks the Lakoff approach is all talk, no action, and fuzzy.
It's worth a read; it's worth a think. It's right here.
Is she on the money or off her rocker?
Several stories making the rounds highlight Bush's indifference to those to whom he cannot relate.
No-bid contracts for his crony's companies? Check.
Tax cuts for the wealthy? Check.
Promotions for the most incompetent, but least challenging, folks in his Administration? Check.
But meanwhile:
Meeting our commitments to help reduce world hunger and poverty? No can do. We're the richest nation, but are at the bottom of the heap as far as contribution percentage. And this is money we committed to donate. every other industrialized nation in the world is outperforming us.
Living up to election year promises to help more students get to college? No can do. Pell Grants are being reduced across the nation. This one galls me because it came up in the debates, and it is just one more example of Kerry pointing out the truth, Bush responding with a bald-faced lie, and the media sitting there refusing to investigate and resolve the "he said, he said" conflict.
There is a pattern here. And it's one followed not just by Bush, but by Ah-nold and by every other Republican who wants the backing of the Party. They don't forget where your bread is buttered. And it is buttered by powerful individual corporations and industry lobbying groups.
The continue to be the Party for the Few, and the Few, most likely, does not include YOU.
We need to start discussing what kind of values system allows them to penalize the starving and the striving, while continuing to bail out the greedy and the grasping.
The other day I received an email from a reader of my personal blog who was offended and disagreed with me on something to the extent that he asked me to change something I'd written.
When I replied that I wouldn't change it, but I'd be happy to write another post airing his grievance about what I'd written, he replied and told me (among other things):
"Unfortunately, you are free to have your opinions and state them as you wish."
That's right I am, as is he, as a matter of fact. But is it so unfortunate? Isn't that what we laud about our own country and its famous Bill of Rights?
Freedom of religion is another one of those freedoms. And yes, I do think at times that means freedom from religion.
Here are a couple of great links on that touchy subject:
BBCNews.com on how Christians are split politically.
Jeff Jarvis on a raging question:
Is America under attack from the religious right.
Or is Christianity under attack from Godless liberalism?
His answer? Neither, thank you.
Read them both.
Republican values at their best: yes, they find it perfectly acceptable to compare "liberals" who want to have proper sex education in high schools and to have scientific theories be all that's covered in science class to the terrorists who flew the planes on 9/11.
I'm not offended. You?
Don't believe me? Check it out.
Chilling effects, people.
And I'm sorry if Jeff Jarvis doesn't like bad news on "liberal" blogs. But you're sure not going to hear this appalling crap from the so-called-liberal-media, are you?
Screw the debunked comparison of IQs in red vs. blue states. We know the election was fought on an intellectual level anyway.
But if people want to say it was fought on values, then show them this:
Teen Pregnancy Rates: Red vs. Blue States
Courtesy: Daily Kos and ItAffectsYou.org
Or how about this:
Infant Mortality Rates: Red vs. Blue States
Courtesy: ItAffectsYou.org
My brother made an interesting comment on Thanksgiving that I think is worth exploring:
"How can we marvel at lower-to-middle class folks voting against their own "self-interest" by voting Republican? Aren't I, as an upper class person, voting against my own self-interest by voting Democratic?"
His point is that he could look at it narrowly and determine that permanent tax cuts for people at his income level is in his "self-interest." And when most Democrats bemoan other class levels not voting their own "self-interest" they mean financial self-interest. But most people take their moral self-interest into account too, and we have to as well, if we're going to win them over.
My brother believes that voting for a cleaner environment, protected civil rights and liberties, more progressive tax policies etc. etc. is more important than pocketing another xx percent of his income.
Similarly, there are those who must believe that certain Republican positions, whether on choice, gay marriage, stem cells, or just exactly how to defend our nation, are more important to their sense of acting on what they believe is right or wrong, than their own financial self-interest is.
Our problem may be that we neglect to infuse every position we have with its inherent morality.
The Republicans do that. They turn every position into one of morals. And they therefore seem to have co-opted the very idea of having values.
I think we can trump them in this area. We need to reject our automatic association of values with religion...which then somehow violates our desire to keep church/state separate. I am not religious, but I have values. Values transcend religions.
I worked so hard to oust Bush because he violated my idea of what's right and what's wrong. Not because of how high the deficit is.
My brother was willing to pay higher taxes if it meant we'd get a better government, a better country and a better world. Those beliefs; those values superseded self-interest. And the Democrats should be proud to frame our positions around values.
One of my regular spiels during the campaign was to talk about the world's attitude toward Americans vs. our President. I felt, and still do, that they did not hold our government's policies against our people during Bush I. They could rationalize and say we were duped, or he stole the election or something along those lines, BUT if we RE-elected him, then they would know he really did represent our people...and it might take decades to rebuild our standing in the world.
Check out what Atrios has to say on that very same subject.
You can claim you don't care what a bunch of foreigners think of us, but this is a global economy, a global effort in the war on terrorism...and we are a country of immigrants with friends, family and business connections all over the world.
It matters.
Frank Rich debunks this concept that the only Democrat who will be able to win the presidency will have to be a bible-thumping Southerner in an essay that talks about values, commerce, and hypocrisy. When it comes to true national influence, "blue" values have it in a landslide.
Here's the link. [Reg. Reqd.]
You can read full text in the extended entry:
FRANK RICH
On 'Moral Values,' It's Blue in a Landslide
NY Times
Published: November 14, 2004
FAREWELL to Swift boats and "Shove it!," to Osama's tape and Saddam's missing weapons, to "security moms" and outsourced dads. They've all been sent to history's dustbin faster than Ralph Nader memorabilia was dumped on eBay. In their stead stands a single ambiguous phrase coined by an anonymous exit pollster: "Moral values." By near universal agreement the morning after, these two words tell the entire story of the election: it's the culture, stupid.
"It really is Michael Moore versus Mel Gibson," said Newt Gingrich. To Jon Stewart, Nov. 2 was the red states' revenge on "Will & Grace." William Safire, speaking on "Meet the Press," called the Janet Jackson fracas "the social-political event of the past year." Karl Rove was of the same mind: "I think it's people who are concerned about the coarseness of our culture, about what they see on the television sets, what they see in the movies ..."
And let's not even get started on the two most dreaded words in American comedy, regardless of your party affiliation: Whoopi Goldberg.
There's only one problem with the storyline proclaiming that the country swung to the right on cultural issues in 2004. Like so many other narratives that immediately calcify into our 24/7 media's conventional wisdom, it is fiction. Everything about the election results - and about American culture itself - confirms an inescapable reality: John Kerry's defeat notwithstanding, it's blue America, not red, that is inexorably winning the culture war, and by a landslide. Kerry voters who have been flagellating themselves since Election Day with a vengeance worthy of "The Passion of the Christ" should wake up and smell the Chardonnay.
The blue ascendancy is nearly as strong among Republicans as it is among Democrats. Those whose "moral values" are invested in cultural heroes like the accused loofah fetishist Bill O'Reilly and the self-gratifying drug consumer Rush Limbaugh are surely joking when they turn apoplectic over MTV. William Bennett's name is now as synonymous with Las Vegas as silicone. The Democrats' Ashton Kutcher is trumped by the Republicans' Britney Spears. Excess and vulgarity, as always, enjoy a vast, bipartisan constituency, and in a democracy no political party will ever stamp them out.
If anyone is laughing all the way to the bank this election year, it must be the undisputed king of the red cultural elite, Rupert Murdoch. Fox News is a rising profit center within his News Corporation, and each red-state dollar that it makes can be plowed back into the rest of Fox's very blue entertainment portfolio. The Murdoch cultural stable includes recent books like Jenna Jameson's "How to Make Love Like a Porn Star" and the Vivid Girls' "How to Have a XXX Sex Life," which have both been synergistically, even joyously, promoted on Fox News by willing hosts like Rita Cosby and, needless to say, Mr. O'Reilly. There are "real fun parts and exciting parts," said Ms. Cosby to Ms. Jameson on Fox News's "Big Story Weekend," an encounter broadcast on Saturday at 9 p.m., assuring its maximum exposure to unsupervised kids.
Almost unnoticed in the final weeks of the campaign was the record government indecency fine levied against another prime-time Fox television product, "Married by America." The $1.2 million bill, a mere bagatelle to Murdoch stockholders, was more than twice the punishment inflicted on Viacom for Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction." According to the F.C.C. complaint, one episode in this heterosexual marriage-promoting reality show included scenes in which "partygoers lick whipped cream from strippers' bodies," and two female strippers "playfully spank" a man on all fours in his underwear. "Married by America" is gone now, but Fox remains the go-to network for Paris Hilton ("The Simple Life") and wife-swapping ("Trading Spouses: Meet Your New Mommy").
None of this has prompted an uprising from the red-state Fox News loyalists supposedly so preoccupied with "moral values." They all gladly contribute fungible dollars to Fox culture by boosting their fair-and-balanced channel's rise in the ratings. Some of these red staters may want to make love like porn stars besides. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) An ABC News poll two weeks before the election found that more Republicans than Democrats enjoy sex "a great deal." The Democrats' new hero, Illinois Senator-elect Barack Obama, was assured victory once his original, ostentatiously pious Republican opponent, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race rather than defend his taste for "avant-garde" sex clubs.
The 22 percent of voters who told pollsters that "moral values" were their top election issue - 79 percent of whom voted for Bush-Cheney - corresponds almost exactly to the number of voters (23 percent) who describe themselves as born-again or evangelical Christians. They are entitled to their culture, too, and their own entertainment industry. And their own show-biz scandals. The Los Angeles Times reported this summer that Paul Crouch, the evangelist who founded the largest Christian network, Trinity Broadcasting Network, vehemently denied a former employee's accusation that the two had had a homosexual encounter - though not before paying the employee a $425,000 settlement. Not so incidentally, Trinity joined Gary Bauer and Fox News as prime movers in "Redeem the Vote," the Christian-rock alternative to MTV's "Rock the Vote."
But the distance between this hard-core red culture and the majority blue culture is perhaps best captured by Tom Coburn, the newly elected Republican senator from Oklahoma, lately famous for discovering "rampant" lesbianism in that state's schools. As a congressman in 1997, Mr. Coburn attacked NBC for encouraging "irresponsible sexual behavior" and taking "network TV to an all-time low with full frontal nudity, violence and profanity being shown in our homes." The broadcast that prompted his outrage on behalf of "parents and decent-minded individuals everywhere" was the network's prime-time showing of Steven Spielberg's "Schindler's List."
It's in the G.O.P.'s interest to pander to this far-right constituency - votes are votes - but you can be certain that a party joined at the hip to much of corporate America, Mr. Murdoch included, will take no action to curtail the blue culture these voters deplore. As Marshall Wittman, an independent-minded former associate of both Ralph Reed and John McCain, wrote before the election, "The only things the religious conservatives get are largely symbolic votes on proposals guaranteed to fail, such as the gay marriage constitutional amendment." That amendment has never had a prayer of rounding up the two-thirds majority needed for passage and still doesn't.
Mr. Wittman echoes Thomas Frank, the author of "What's the Matter With Kansas?," by common consent the year's most prescient political book. "Values," Mr. Frank writes, "always take a backseat to the needs of money once the elections are won." Under this perennial "trick," as he calls it, Republican politicians promise to stop abortion and force the culture industry "to clean up its act" - until the votes are counted. Then they return to their higher priorities, like cutting capital gains and estate taxes. Mr. Murdoch and his fellow cultural barons - from Sumner Redstone, the Bush-endorsing C.E.O. of Viacom, to Richard Parsons, the Republican C.E.O. of Time Warner, to Jeffrey Immelt, the Bush-contributing C.E.O. of G.E. (NBC Universal) - are about to be rewarded not just with more tax breaks but also with deregulatory goodies increasing their power to market salacious entertainment. It's they, not Susan Sarandon and Bruce Springsteen, who actually set the cultural agenda Gary Bauer and company say they despise.
But it's not only the G.O.P.'s fealty to its financial backers that is predictive of how little cultural bang the "values" voters will get for their Bush-Cheney votes. At 78 percent, the nonvalues voters have far more votes than they do, and both parties will cater to that overwhelming majority's blue tastes first and last. Their mandate is clear: The same poll that clocked "moral values" partisans at 22 percent of the electorate found that nearly three times as many Americans approve of some form of legal status for gay couples, whether civil unions (35 percent) or marriage (27 percent). Do the math and you'll find that the poll also shows that for all the G.O.P.'s efforts to court Jews, the total number of Jewish Republican voters in 2004, while up from 2000, was still some 200,000 less than the number of gay Republican voters.
When Robert Novak writes after the election that "the anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, socially conservative agenda is ascendant, and the G.O.P. will not abandon it anytime soon," you have to wonder what drug he is on. The abandonment began at the convention. Sam Brownback, the Kansas senator who champions the religious right, was locked away in an off-camera rally across town from Madison Square Garden. Prime time was bestowed upon the three biggest stars in post-Bush Republican politics: Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Arnold Schwarzenegger. All are supporters of gay rights and opponents of the same-sex marriage constitutional amendment. Only Mr. McCain calls himself pro-life, and he's never made abortion a cause. None of the three support the Bush administration position on stem-cell research. When the No. 1 "moral values" movie star, Mel Gibson, condemned the Schwarzenegger-endorsed California ballot initiative expanding and financing stem-cell research, the governor and voters crushed him like a girlie-man. The measure carried by 59 percent, which is consistent with national polling on the issue.
If the Republican party's next round of leaders are all cool with blue culture, why should Democrats run after the red? Received Washington wisdom has it that the only Democrat who will ever be able to win a national election must be a cross between Gomer Pyle and Billy Sunday - a Scripture-quoting Sun Belt exurbanite whose loyalty to Nascar does not extend to Dale Earnhardt Jr., who was fined last month for saying a four-letter word on television.
According to this argument, the values voters the Democrats must pander to are people like Cary and Tara Leslie, archetypal Ohio evangelical "Bush votes come to life" apotheosized by The Washington Post right after Election Day. The Leslies swear by "moral absolutes," support a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and mostly watch Fox News. Mr. Leslie has also watched his income drop from $55,000 to $35,000 since 2001, forcing himself, his wife and his three young children into the ranks of what he calls the "working poor." Maybe by 2008 some Democrat will figure out how to persuade him that it might be a higher moral value to worry about the future of his own family than some gay family he hasn't even met.
I've added a new Category in honor of the hot topic of the moment: Values.
First entry: a must read consideration of the topic by Arianna Huffington. She goes beyond the media spin of the exit poll numbers...and reminds us of one of the most stirring moments of the campaign season.
Must...read....now!!!!