The Great Decider Decides to Quit

Bush doesn't think he can catch Bin Laden.

But he still says, and no I'm not making this up, that, "He'll be gotten by a president."

Of course that might be in 2018, and the President might not be American, but a president will get 'em!

Bush = Joke

PS: Oh, and why did I post a pic of the drunken Jenna Bush outside of a frat party? Because F--k 'em, that's why.

This Just In

FISA Bill Tabled:


"Well, one down. The Senate just voted to kill (table) the Senate Judiciary Committee's surveillance bill, which did not contain retroactive immunity for the telecoms. The vote was 60-34 to table, with a number of Dems crossing over. As we said earlier, a number of other amendments will also go up for votes this afternoon.

"Among the Democrats voting to kill the SJC bill were Sens. Mark Pryor (AK), Daniel Inouye (HI), Claire McCaskill (MO), Mary Landrieu (LA), Ken Salazar (CO) and Tim Johnson (SD)."

I'll grumble to myself (in a soundproof box that I check for taps).

And If He Loses

Douthat on the future of Obama, if he loses:

"While Jason Zengerle wonders what will happen to Barack Obama's supporters if he loses, I'm wondering what happens to Obama himself. Good things, arguably: Given the campaign he's run and the kind of fervor he's generated, I think he's better-positioned for a future run at the Presidency than any failed primary candidate since Ronald Reagan (that name again!) after he lost to Ford 1976."

Of course it would all have to do with a Clinton presidency (assuming she wins). If she's like Bill in his first term--competent, simulates the economy (and not her loins), it would be harder for Obama to win running on his 08' platform. He might win, but we would see another Obama, and for better or worse, it probably wouldn't be nearly as far reaching or inspiring.

Remember John Edwards?

He's been talking too:

"In Washington today, telecom lobbyists have launched a full-court press to win retroactive immunity for their illegal eavesdropping on American citizens. Granting retroactive immunity will let corporate law-breakers off the hook and hamstring efforts to learn the truth about Bush's illegal spying program.

"It's time for Senate Democrats to show a little backbone and stand up to George W. Bush and the corporate lobbyists. They should do everything in their power -- including joining Senator Dodd's efforts to filibuster this legislation -- to stop retroactive immunity. The Constitution should not be for sale at any price."

And he used a basketball metaphor! COME ON PEOPLE! Show him some love!

Hat Tip: MY

Hollow

Too little, too late:

"WASHINGTON - Congressional leaders announced a deal with the White House Thursday on an economic stimulus package that would give most tax filers refunds of $600 to $1,200, and more if they have children."

I'll be using mine to pay back student loans. What will you do with your "windfall"?

Some Advice For Obama

From Shakespeare:

"There's letters seal'd, and my two schoolfellows,

Whom I will trust as I will adders fang'd—

They bear the mandate, they must sweep my way

And marshal me to knavery. Let it work;

For 'tis the sport to have the enginer

Hoist with his own petard, an't shall go hard

But I will delve one yard below their mines

And blow them at the moon."

Obama Vs. Clinton

It's getting more and more heated, with more people taking sides. Sully sees it as a "moral and political imperative" that Billary loses:



"The Obama phenomenon rattled them, and their strategy is to quash it, by any means and at any cost. They know that they do not need to win so much as they need to make Obama lose. That's the game-plan. The same emailers seemed unusually convinced that Obama was a closet Muslim and that a black man could never be elected in America. The most depressing tendencies from the right and from the left.


"The more I witness this campaign, the clearer it is to me that it is not only important that Obama and McCain now win; it is a moral and political imperative that the Clintons lose."



The campaign that the Clinton's have decided to run has been utterly disgusting, as gross as Giuliani's has been incompetent. But even beyond that it's become yet another of the many reasons for Democrats to hate Democrats. As a lifelong Democrat, as a believer in the dreams of FDR, JFK, MLK and to some extent even Bill Clinton, I believed that the Democrats were a party of hope, of dreams, and of higher virtues that extended beyond greed, racism, and pettiness. Call me naive, a term I'm sure I am, I always knew that if and when we lost at least we didn't resort to our opponents' methods of pandering and polarization. Yet before we can even get to the main bout the Clinton's have pulled out all of these guns and then some. I understand Billary got a shitty deal in the 90's. Hell, even some Republicans outside of the Rush and Billo faction can realize this, but that's no excuse to sell out your soul for a vote. Some things are supposed to be more important then that. Hope is more important than that.



Right now both sides are in a generational war, and like the war in Iraq it's a war for the hearts and minds of Americans. It's not just about who's going to become the next president--Bush screwed that up too much--it's about direction. In January 2007 it was about making sure a Democrat was in office, but with Obama's entrance the goal was redefined into something that was more grandiose yet vital. In a way it was if he turned back the clock to September 12, 2001 and said what we all wanted to hear: that in these trying times we don't have to be afraid and we don't have to become as brutal as our enemies, that we, like a Phoenix, can spring from the ashes of despair to become something more beautiful and just. That we can, in our founders' words, become more perfect if we believe and work together. And as his popularity has shown this message is something that millions of us have been waiting to hear. If that dream is defeated on it's own merits than so be it. That's what democratic debate is for, to verbally test our ideas and temper them into a pragmatic and workable from. But if, as the Clintons have done and continue to do, that dream is rotted from the inside out with racism, personal attacks, and lies then it hasn't been tested it's been poisoned and left to die in its crib like an infant.

If Hil wins the nomination and McCain is the GOP candidate I'm not going to say that I'll switch sides. I probably won't as the legacy of Bush has given me a near pathological hatred of anything Republican. But I will say this, if I'm in that booth and I turn the lever for Hilary I'll feel that a part of me has died and the rest has gotten older and more bitter. As Langston Hughes wrote, it will be the raisin that dried in the sun.

Star Trek Trailer

And in case you missed Cloverfield, the special Star Trek teaser can be found here. I think it's pretty cool.

Secret Message in Cloverfield?

If this is true then maybe there is an ending, and a sequel?

They're Adapting

And it's not good for us:

"US military officials say a roadside bomb attack in Iraq on Saturday killed an American soldier - the first fatality in new armored vehicles designed to protect against such bombs."

A Great MLK Testamonial

Would Al Sharpton or better yet Bill Clinton have this type of courage? Probably not:

"From "Why I Am Opposed to the War in Vietnam", April 30 1967:



Now, let me make it clear in the beginning, that I see this war as an unjust, evil, and futile war. I preach to you today on the war in Vietnam because my conscience leaves me with no other choice. The time has come for America to hear the truth about this tragic war. In international conflicts, the truth is hard to come by because most nations are deceived about themselves. Rationalizations and the incessant search for scapegoats are the psychological cataracts that blind us to our sins. But the day has passed for superficial patriotism. He who lives with untruth lives in spiritual slavery. Freedom is still the bonus we receive for knowing the truth. "Ye shall know the truth," says Jesus, "and the truth shall set you free." Now, I've chosen to preach about the war in Vietnam because I agree with Dante, that the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality. There comes a time when silence becomes betrayal.


"It's a searing moment because the silence in the face of moral crisis of which King speaks is no mere cowardice or opportunism. King's life and career have been dedicated to the Civil Rights movement -- to the cause of bettering the well-being of African-Americans. And from the death of Abraham Lincoln until the present day, that cause's most crucial ally has been Lyndon Johnson who in a monumental act of political courage chose finally to decisively align the Democratic Party with the cause of Civil Rights dooming its political coalition to oblivion.
And yet here in Vietnam was Johnson's war. A Johnson increasingly in political trouble from his left. A Johnson who could very much use the support of a Martin Luther King. Indeed, a Johnson who in many ways deserves the support of a Martin Luther King. To ask a man to publicly defend a war he deplores would be too much. But would it really be so much to ask King to simply stay quiet -- to focus on his core issues, and praise Johnson on those terms -- not for King's own sake but for the sake of his movement? Who then or now would blame the great Civil RIghts leader for standing behind the great Civil Rights president? But he came to believe that it couldn't be done. That wrong was wrong and someone had to say so."


That reminds me of another quote by another great American:


"These are the times that try men's souls: The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it Now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict the more glorious the triumph."


I just wonder, do you think any of the candidates for president possess this type of 'winter soldier' quality? And before you say you don't, even among the Gravel's or Paul's or Obama's, then ask yourself, seriously, if you've let cynicism overtake your mind. Because if you truly can't find this quality in anyone--not even yourself--then life is not worth living.

Compassionate McCain

I agree mostly with Yglesias assessment of McCain's detachment from low and middle class ecomonic problems, but this is unduly harsh:

"On some emotional level, he probably thinks a woman who needs to declare bankruptcy because the racked up massive credit card bills while her uninsured husband was dying of cancer should just grin and bear it the way he did as a POW."

Now Giuliani however...

Picture of the Day

Hat Tip: Sully

And I don't wanna...I don't...

"WHAT CHU TALKIN 'BOUT BUSH!"

Post-Cloverfield Review

If you haven't seen it then by all means do so. Sully gets a bit technical about his endorsement; all I can say is that it's a fun, fun movie full of scares and thrills. Just make sure to check your brain at the door (as far as I know, there's no camcorder with a 36 hour battery with sound mixing and night vision on the market for popular use) and it's made by the same guy that brought you Lost, so don't expect a tidy ending, in fact don't expect an ending at all.

Possible?

Is Edwards tossing his support to Clinton? He did seem to side with Hil alot last night and then he met with her after the debate. Interesting.

Fred Thomspon Out

His wife will be missed.

I'm surprised he didn't do better, especially in the South, but I think his lackadaisical attitude ultimately turned conservatives off. When John McCain is bringing more energy to the table you know some thing's wrong with your campaign.

I know Frank J. must be distraught.

Heath Ledger Dead

From MSNBC.com:

"NEW YORK - A New York Police Department spokesman says the actor Heath Ledger has been found dead at a downtown Manhattan residence.

"According to TMZ.com, Ledger, 28, was found dead in his bed in one of his residences in Soho by his housekeeper at 3:35 p.m. ET Tuesday"

Seemed like a pretty cool dude.

Oscar Nominations

Tommy Lee Jones is astounded that he was nominated for best actor for "In the Valley of Elah" rather than "No Country for Old Men".




The full list of nominations can be found here. I won't draw this one out, and since I know you're dying to know my picks so you can place your bets they are as follows:








Best Picture


"No Country for Old Men" will just barely beat out "There Will Be Blood".

Best Director


Obviously it's either the Coen Bros or Paul Anderson. I'm going to give it to Anderson since I think the Academy is going to split their votes between 'No Country' and 'Blood.' But if the Coen's win best director, then they'll also win best pic. Why? I have a feeling...

Best Actor


No doubt--Daniel Day-Lewis. A bet against him is a bet against liberty.

Best Actress


I think Blanchett is going to win the supporting nod for "I'm Not There" just because the Academy has to give that film some credit, and it's not nominated for any of the bigger titles. Thus the best actress nod is going to Ellen Page for 'Juno'. It might seem like a longshot, but I think the Academy is going to have a soft spot for this cute little independent flick, and Page was adorable in her role.

Best Supporting Actor


Again, no doubt--Javier Bardem for "No Country". A bet against him is a bet against America.

Best Foreign Film


Shrug...the one you can least understand, and going by language I'm betting on 'Mongol' from Kazakhstan. I think we still owe them for Borat.

Best Original Screenplay

Going 'Juno' on this one. Got a great buzz and its the most fun Hollywood's had actually having a baby rather than aborting it. Oooouch, that was a really nasty comment.


Best Adapted Screenplay

I'm going for "No Country for Old Men" but don't be surprised if "The Diving Bell" wins it. If you bet on "Bell" get good odds.


Best Animated Feature

Gotta go "Ratatouille" on this one, but "Persepolis" probably will deserve it. But if you're a fan of Ayn Rand and Ratatouille doesn't win, you kill someone and then act really arrogant about it.


Best Cinematography

'Atonement'. If you don't know why, go see it.


Best Score

'Atonement'. Probably it's the only movie outside of a musical where you almost want to watch the movie to hear the score. It's dynamic.


Best Song

Well 'Enchanted' is nominated for three of the five songs, so find the one by Randy Newman and bet on that.


As far as the rest...well you're on your own partner, cause I know less than zero about costume design and sound mixing. Flip a coin or do innie-minnie-mynnie-moe. Either way the even money, as usual, is that the actual show will suck, with or without writers.

Clash in Carolina

Well, if you're a politics wonk like me you loved last night's Democratic debate in SC, which had Hilary and Obama lighting up the stage with verbal jabs and hooks:

"MYRTLE BEACH, S.C. - A simmering feud between Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama erupted into charges of distortion and exaggeration in a gloves-off presidential debate Monday, with Clinton accusing him of representing a Chicago slumlord and Obama countering that she was a corporate lawyer for anti-union Wal-Mart.

"Even in the superheated atmosphere of their fight for the party's nomination, the statements and exchanges between Clinton and Obama were unusually acrimonious and personal. The debate came as the two campaigns continued to complain about dirty politics and disenfranchisement of voters in last Saturday's Nevada caucuses.

"As Obama tried to defend his recent comments about Republican ideas and Ronald Reagan, Clinton interrupted and said she has never criticized his remarks on Reagan.

"Your husband did," said Obama, who has accused the former president of misrepresenting his record."

But if you happen to be your average voter you probably got pissed off at the personal attacks and negative smearing. Yes, I think that Hilary instigated most of it, but after a while it was just plain ugly. Overall I'd have to say that the tone benefited Edwards who came off like an innocent bystander in a shootout, fighting tooth and nail just to get a word in, and when he did he sounded mature, chastising his opponents for not"...understand[ing], this is not about us personally. It's about what we are trying to do for this country."

Though I think Obama won the debate, he was the loser in this exchange with Hil. Trying to play at her level deadened his message of unity and when he gets negative he falls directly into her clutches. She can win playing politics as usual because that's what we expect, but people who support Obama hold him to a higher standard of integrity so when he falls he falls farther.

The moral for Obama--stop playing Sam and Diane with Hilary Clinton.

Is That What You REALLY Meant?

From Ambinder:

"A new radio ad in South Carolina from Sen. Hillary Clinton.... Magic Johnson implies that Barack Obama is a "hyped" "rookie" who needs more seasoning. Check it out:


"This is Magic Johnson. On the court and in life, successful leadership comes from hard work and experience. That’s why I’m endorsing Hillary Clinton for President. We have great candidates this year, but I believe only Hillary is a proven leader, with 35 years’ experience dealing with challenges facing America. Are you looking for better jobs, universal health care, better treatment for veterans, opportunities for your children? Then you want Hillary Clinton for President. My rookie year, we won our first game on a last second shot. I was so hyped. But the captain of my team said, “take it easy rookie, it’s a long season, it’s a long road to the championship.” He was right. Winning comes from years of hard work and preparation. Whether it’s winning championships or a President who can lead us back to greatness, I’ll always want the most prepared and experienced person leading my team. That’s why I’m asking you to join me in voting for Hillary Clinton for President."


Here's my beef, if I'm reading this correctly, Magic's trying to say that he was like Obama, a rookie, and that experience (Clinton) is what wins championships. But...it just so happens that in Magic's rookie year he led the Lakers to a championship and had one of the most astounding rookie years in NBA history, leading the league in triple doubles (second only to Oscar Robinson), starting on the All-star team, and winning the NBA's MVP Finals award.

So I ask again; Magic, is this REALLY what you meant?

UPDATE: I thought I could beat Yglesias to this. Silly me.

Pacman Charged With Abuse

She had it coming. What a ho.

LOL

Couldn't have put it better myself.

Criminalizing Divorce

It's the path that Huckabee wants to travel:

"And the same thing would be true of marriage. Marriage has historically, as long as there’s been human history, meant a man and a woman in a relationship for life. Once we change that definition, then where does it go from there? "

Sully thinks the whole Huckabee fanaticism is dangerous,

"I don't think people have really understood the logical consequences of the fundamentalist psyche. There is nothing more antithetical to the principles underlying traditional conservatism. Eventually, the complacent Republicans will realize the tiger they are riding. Huckabee is charming. The charming ones are often the most dangerous."

But I think that he like alot of other secular religious people and northern liberals take the born-again vote, and their advocates, too seriously. There is something in the American spirit that abhors theocracy, and while we may flirt with it, especially when we think our morals are 'slipping away' there seems to be some inherent piece of the American spirit that cannot embrace it. I suppose we love our liberty and individuality more than domination and ultimately this love this the thing that rights the boat.

Why The Clintons Inject Race Into the Campaign

The Chicago Daily Observer has an idea:

"The more the conversation gets to be about race, the better the Clintons think they will do. It’s as simple as that.

"They want to nudge—even provoke—Barack Obama into becoming the “black” candidate rather than the healing, unity candidate. They want black supporters to raise their voices on his behalf—preferably the Al Sharpton types who will shrilly cry “racism” and thus exacerbate the divide.

"That’s why Billary changed the conversation in New Hampshire, risking some anger against them in the black communities—anger they know would be assuaged in a general election. Okay, let him carry South Carolina, as long as he is tagged with Afrocentrism."

Side note: Billary...awesome.

Hat Tip: Sully

Billy Unhinged

You know, when Bill went on that tirade against Chris Wallace last year, I was supportive. I mean Wallace SO had that coming. But this was not only unexpected, but maybe unwarranted?




I would like to say that the actual reporting of this was really good. I sorta understand the caucuses now. No I don't.

And Don't Forget Our Love Affair With Bhutto

I think the importance of this posting is lost a bit in its brevity, but in my opinion this is primarily the reason why both US foreign policy and public school American History curriculum are so screwed up:


"According to George W. Bush, Egypt is making progress toward "greater political openness." That's, um, not true.



"I'm not sure there's very much the US government can or should do, in practice, to push Egypt into becoming a democracy. And, certainly, I grasp the pragmatic need to get along with governments willing to get along with us. But I don't really understand why this need is pragmatically construed as the need to lie and pretend to believe that Hosni Mubarak is moving his country toward democracy when everyone knows that he's cracking down on the opposition and trying to install his son as the next pharaoh. The schizophrenia of American policy -- invading Iraq to spread the flame of democracy, and then spinning on Mubarak's behalf in Cairo; between demonizing Hugo Chavez as a totalitarian menace and then hanging out with Saudi officials at the president's vacation home -- is really absurd.



"The idea that these tin pot dictators would somehow turn on us if we didn't kiss their assess doesn't hold much water. We need Saudi oil, and the Saudis need our money. We have interests that can be advanced through collaboration with the government of Egypt and the government of Egypt has interests that can be advanced through cooperation with our government. The pretense that every country we have a dispute with is run by the New Hitler while every country we opportunistically ally with is run by a Bold Reformer is incredibly dumb and something a grownup country ought to be able to move past."


I wish I could say that this complete inability to recognize mistakes and moral nuances was limited to Bush's reign but it's been endemic to the United States for some time. Now I can't say for sure whether or not other Democratic states have the same issues, but the idea of reworking history to fit a mold of "we good (always)" and "They bad (always)" seems Orwellian. Yet this is something we regularly do, whether it be inflating JFK's legacy because he was assassinated, or deflating the historical importance of our relationship with the French because they occasionally disagree with us on certain issues. And that's not even beginning to talk about the segued racial history of our country. It seems to me that one of the reasons we get consistently bogged down in mires like Iraq is because we reshape history to never prove us wrong, and thus never learn from our mistakes.

PS: Don't take the above to mean that I everyone suffers from this malady. Of course we don't, but much of our policy and policy shapers embrace this reductionist tendency, which screws things up further because by simplifying the issue it forces those that disagree to take the opposite view, thus polarizing the issue. For example, as Joseph J. Ellis writes in American Creation, a polarizing view makes us view the founding fathers as, "demigods who were permitted to glimpse the eternal truths...or a cast of villains who collectively comprise the deadest, whitest males in American history." These reductive narratives completely miss the pragmatic truth while at the same time cloud ones judgement.

Clinton Loses

Her Nevada suit that is.

"That's Not True Governor!"

Glad to see someone in the press is doing their job. And as to Mitt's point, if you're in on prep meetings, on the plane, and in the room, it seems to me that you're part of the campaign.

Dow Plunges

Down 300 points.

Liberal Hatred

Douthat gives a great write up about the debate over who's the biggest haters, Liberals or Conservatives. His conclusion is really worth thinking about, especially for liberals:

"That said, though, I do think that for smart liberals, the depth of conservative-hatred on the left ought to be at least the cause of some concern, even if they think it's possibly justified in the case of George W. Bush. As I suggested when Jon Chait's big netroots essay came out, there's a risk that the new "movement liberalism," having been forged in the crucible of Bush-hatred, will end up imitating contemporary conservatism's worst habits - which include, among others things, a difficulty engaging with the opposition save through vitriol and stereotype. To see this tendency in action, consider Matt Stoller's response to Barack Obama's expression of (mild, mild) sympathy for Ronald Reagan's 1970s critique of big government.

"It is extremely disturbing to hear, not that Obama admires Reagan, but why he does so. Reagan was not a sunny optimist pushing dynamic entrepreneurship, but a savvy politician using a civil rights backlash to catapult conservatives to power. Lots of people don't agree with this, of course, since it doesn't fit a coherent narrative of GOP ascendancy. Masking Reagan's true political underpinning principles is a central goal of the conservative movement ... if you think, as Obama does, that Reagan's rise to power was premised on a sunny optimism in contrast to an out of control government and a society rife with liberal excess, then you don't understand the conservative movement. Reagan tapped into greed and fear and tribalism, and those are powerful forces. Ignoring that isn't going to make them go away."

"I'm on the record expecting an era of liberal dominance in American politics. But there's no surer way to ensure that it's as brief as possible than for liberals to persuade themselves, with Stoller, that Ronald Reagan succeeded because he was e-e-e-vil, and that the entire conservative ascendancy boils down to nothing more that "greed and fear and tribalism" run amok."

As usual I look to comic books and science-fiction for a solution and nothing distills down this issue better than Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi. At the end Luke is tempted with the dark side. "Strike me down!" The Emperor says. "Give in to your hate." But Luke is ultimately victorious because he turns away from his rage and embraces love. The moral: when you use your enemy's tactics you become your enemy. Which is, of course, why the US tortures people.

PS: By the way, did you know that Chris Dodd dated Carrie Fisher? Who'da thunk it?

Increasing Air Strikes in Iraq

Yglesias:

"Increased reliance on firepower as a substitute for adequate manpower strikes me as a classic COIN no-no, but Kahl seems to approve and even told USA Today last week that due to increased carefulness, the civil toll is being reduced: "You saw a lot more damage to the civilian population in 2004 than you're seeing now. Even though you have a huge uptick in offensive operations, it looks like the military is taking greater care not to harm civilians." Obviously, I hope that's right. It's my understanding, however, that the Defense Department still doesn't count civilian casualties so I don't really understand how they would know whether or not you're seeing a reduction in damage to the civilian population. In my book, the first step in "taking greater care" to avoid something is to measure what's happening."

Question: What targets are we bombing that like, need bombs? At least when Saddam was in power you had like radar stations and air strips, but unless the insurgency has reached COBRA status and are roaming around in Terrordomes, the only targets they could possibly have are small villages and houses. It seems counterproductive and inefficient, but I suppose we have to spend those defense dollars somehow.

Quote of the Day

From Ken Levine:

"Summer Glau (pictured above) plays a “good” Terminator, assigned to protect teenager John Connor from the “bad” Terminators who are trying to whack him before he can grow up and save the world. Scientologists believe the same is true of the Tom Cruise/Katie Holmes baby. The Terminator legend is more grounded."

Side Note: For some reason this is the ONLY Sci-fi show my wife likes. We were browsing channels one night and I came upon it, so we decided to check it out. Watched it till commerical, got bored and was about to change when my wife said, "Wait, I wanna see what happens." This presented an interesting dilemma. I wasn't really enthralled with this, but it did have guns and hot chicks, and considering that my wife likes travel shows and PBS documentaries on the origins of cheese...well let's just say that The Chronicles found itself a fan.

Picture of the Day

This is begging to be a lolterizt.

Canada Puts US on Torture Watch List

You can thank Trey Parker and Matt Stone for that.

Question

If Huckabee wins the election and is somehow able to rewrite the Constitution to conform to 'God's word', would it be because he was more persuasive, or because History teachers didn't do their job? I think it would be the latter.

Former GOP Congressman Charged With Funding Terror

Wow. I can't even get a handle on this one. I mean it's not exactly news that Republican's are corrupt but this goes above and beyond the call of sleaze. Not only that, but the guy was a born again Christian who wore "Jesus First" buttons while he campaigned and claimed that he was elected because, "God wanted me in". Then again was it his Christian zealotry that led to his downfall? Sully has some insight here, but I think you can more directly see the link if you watch the section in the movie Jesus Camp when a Christian camp counselor praises fundamentalist Islamics for indoctrinating their children in the Koran from an early age. These born-agains admire Islamic fundamentalists' methods, and probably hope that an Al-Qaeda victory will be the spark that ignites their holy war and brings them closer to the Rapture.

You know, all during high school I wanted to get closer to the Rapture too, but I didn't think Jesus had anything to do with it.

A Obama - Gore Ticket?

Aaaaah...yeah. But would Gore leave his life of stardom to play Obama's second fiddle? I doubt it.

You can still bank on him endorsing Obama, if only to piss off Hilary.

The Final Nail in Huckabee's Coffin?

Talk about writing checks that your body can't cash, Huckabee vows to deport all 12 million illegal immigrants.

Does he think we're that stupid? Probably.

Worth A Second Look

I mentioned it in passing, but it's really worth reading Yglesias' atomic power kick of Tim Russert. Don't just think of it as dissing Russert, think of it as dissing the media in general.

Pumped...

For Cloverfield. I'm sure it's not going to be in the same quality zip code as No Country and There Will Be Blood, but ever since I saw the trailer before The Transformers I've been dying to check it out. It's got a good review over at MSNBC.COM, but Rottentomatos.com is only giving it a 56%. Eh, who cares? I'd go see the next Republican debate if the Statue of Liberty's head rolled through the stage.

One thing though...who was the genius that decided to name it 'Cloverfield'? I mean you could have called it 'Big F'ing Monster' and it would have been better. Hell 'Mary J. Blige Shoots Steroids in Her Ass' is a better title, and probably would have made more sense then Mary J. Blige shooting steroids in her ass. I swear to God if that monster comes out and calls itself Cloverfield! I'm going to vomit on the front row.

The Heart of Juno

I think Chris Orr gets it:

"One of Juno's sharpest elements is its treatment of the Lorings. When we first meet them, we are obviously intended to like hip, ironic, artistic Mark and to find reliable, earnest, domestic Vanessa annoying and/or pitiable. What's impressive is the way the film gradually reverses our early affections, but does so without ever really changing either character. Instead it merely shifts our perspective, showing that the guy you want to swap mix tapes and spend afternoons watching horror movies with is probably not the guy you want to be a father for your child. In Knocked Up, the former abruptly, quasi-magically becomes the latter, allowing viewers to have their cake and eat it, too. In Juno (and, I think, real life), one not infrequently has to choose between the fun guy (or gal) and the responsible one, and it's a choice Juno does not hesitate to make."

In a tangential fashion I think this is exactly the reason why people have a hard time watching Bill Clinton on the stump for Hilary. He's still a 'cool' guy, but we realize that he turned out to be a sorta irresponsible prick, and, it looks like he's asking us for the car keys again through his wife. This puts Hilary supporters and liberals in general in an awkward spot.

PS: Just realized that if you haven't seen the movie this whole post probably doesn't make any sense to you. Well do yourself a favor and go see it. It's a lot of fun.

Justice League, Legion of Doom

Among pundits there seems to be this attitude, and attitude that I share, that the GOP primary is more interesting that the Democratic, and I think this attitude stems from a point I made in this post where I said:

"Considering that the policies of the Dems as compared to their GOP opponents are so cut and dry, what they're really running on, in these primaries, are their intangibles (likability, personality, etc) and narratives that they're trying to establish: Obama the unifier, Edwards the Fighter, Hilary the Experienced. "

The GOP group is more interesting not because their individual narratives are more interesting than the Dems' individual narratives, but their group dynamic is more explosive. The Dems are like the Justice League, pooling their unique powers to "do good", while the Legion, in that anonymous swamp where they reside (Where is that? The Everglades? New Jersey?), Lex Luthor, Brainaic, Captain Cold, et al are all focused on their own agendas, teaming up only because they share a common enemy. This intergroup tension leads to greater drama, which is much more fascinating. So why does it seem like the Democrats get more airtime? Simple--in real life you don't want the Legion to win. After all, we've seen what a President Luthor can do.

Cool Thing

If you happen to be a gamer I suggest Gamefly.com. It's like Netflix, but for games, and they deliver at the same rate. With the price of games being how they are it's a great deal.

Tell 'em Teethwriter sent ya, and they'll say, 'who?'

PS: Believe it or not--this is not a paid advertisement.

Decision Hip-Hop

A nice discussion over at Allhiphop.com regarding where Hip-hop, and African-Americans stand on the Democratic candidates. Worth the read.

Oh, on a side note, I'll be starting a weekly run down of politics over there starting next week Monday.

Is Hil Trying to Take Away Votes?

John Kerry thinks so.

Obama/ Kerry 08??? Ooooo, I don't think so.

The Mystery Heckler Last Night

In case you were wondering what could make three politicians and two 'journalists' shut up:

"The first twenty minutes of Tuesday's Democratic showdown in Las Vegas passed without a single substantive question, as the NBC moderators busied themselves prodding the soft spots of identity politics. Barack Obama was asked if New Hampshire whites didn't vote for him because he was black. Hillary Clinton was asked how race had become such a big factor in the election. John Edwards was asked, "What is a white male to do?" That was actually the question.

"Then some guy started shouting from the back of the auditorium. "Will you stop all these race-based questions?" he hollered. There was an awkward pause around the big table where everyone sat. The moderators, Tim Russert and Brian Williams, looked guilty and confused."

The Most Dangerous Words Ever?

Huckabee:

"[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards..."

Hey Iran did it, and look how well it works for them!

The Long Haul

As usual, Yglesias gives a great breakdown of Dem debate last night commenting as I did that, for the most part, the proceedings were civil. However I disagree a bit with his final paragraph:

"Few big disagreements about big ideas are in play on the Democratic field. For now, most liberals find that consensus heartening, but we may come to regret it if it means that the eventual winner emerges into the field of battle without having really tested his or her arguments against a candidate willing to draw sharp lines of contrast."

I think MY fails to take into account that this race is going the distance and that these debates are turning into weekly recaps, summarizing and capping the overall political attitude of the moment. In that case, what you saw from the Dems last night was a lull in their warfare, attempting to ease the racial tensions of the last week, which was a negative for everyone. Considering that the policies of the Dems as compared to their GOP opponents are so cut and dry, what they're really running on, in these primaries, are their intangibles (likability, personality, etc) and narratives that they're trying to establish: Obama the unifier, Edwards the Fighter, Hilary the Experienced. To that end I think they did a decent job in their rhetoric, but they just lacked the enthusiasm to get us to hear it.

Oh, by the way, am I the only one getting tired of having Tim Russert moderate these debates? He's enough to put anyone to sleep.

The Nail In Ron Paul's Coffin

It was fun while it lasted.

Please, Don't Hold Anything Back

Yikes.

Inappropriate?

For the most part the Democratic debate in Nevada last night was civil as the three main contenders chose to mostly focus on their strengths and attack Bush. Clinton and Obama pretty much dominated the conversation, with Edwards trying mostly to build his populist rep while creating a sense of uniqueness. On this point he didn't succeed as he repeatedly went to his stump no matter what question was asked of him. One odd moment that I think escaped most was something that Edwards said at the very end of the debate, long after the audience passed out. The NY Times has the full transcript here, but I draw your attention to the very end:

"RUSSERT: Senator Edwards, on the conduct of foreign policy, after Benazir Bhutto was assassinated, you made a phone call to General Musharraf in Pakistan. He called you back quickly. Close to half the people in Pakistan believe the government of Musharraf or allies were involved in the assassination of Miss Bhutto.


EDWARDS: Yes.

RUSSERT: Was it appropriate for you to talk to Musharraf at that time, perhaps give him cover at a time when he needed legitimacy?


EDWARDS: It was absolutely appropriate, and I didn't actually speak -- place a call to President Musharraf. I placed a call to the Pakistani ambassador in the United States and told him that I knew Musharraf, we had met in Islamabad years ago and talked about some of the problems in Pakistan at that time and that I had some things I wanted to say to him.
Now, the things I had to say to him were tough. And they were exactly the things that the president of the Untied States should say to a President Musharraf under these circumstances.
First, I said to him, you have to continue on the march to democratization in South Pakistan. Benazir Bhutto, who I was with in Abu Dhabi in the Middle East just a few years ago, I heard her talk about the path to democratization being baptized in blood in Pakistan. She put her life at risk for that path to democratization. What I said to Musharraf is: You have to stay on that path. Now, he said he would. That needs to be taken with great cynicism and a huge grain of salt, given his history. Second, I said you must allow international investigators in to determine what happened, because no one is going to trust some internal investigation that you conduct. Actually, they have now allowed Scotland Yard investigators into Pakistan to at least conduct some investigation. And then, third, I said these elections that are scheduled have to take place as soon as possible, but they need to be real. They have to be open, fair. The opposition parties need to be represented. They have to be secure.And those are the points I wanted to make to him. And those are exactly the points I would make to him as president of the United States."

I understand no one really had the time to follow up on this one (there was about one minute left to the debate) but as soon as I heard his response I was a bit shocked, after all it seems to me completely inappropriate for Edwards to speak to Musharraf about this issue, especially in the tone that Edwards claims he spoke. He's not an elected official, so what is he giving Musharraf orders for? And that paternal arrogant attitude that reminds me of Bollinger introducing Ahmadinejad at Columbia University doesn't grease the wheels of friendship and is completely counterproductive coming from a former Senator. I mean, what the hell is Musharraf going to say, "Oh well now that John Edwards told me I need to have to open elections I better do it." or is he going to say, "Wow, John Edwards is a tool." Either way I don't think any unelected candidate should be doing international relations unless it's for a personal reason using the most conciliatory tone possible. (And yes, I think Obama can talk to Kenya considering he has family there and he's an elected official. In fact I couldn't imagine any one in his position not pulling a few strings to help out.)

I still have a great respect for Edwards, but in his desire to establish a hard foreign policy rep I think he stepped over the line here.

Tom Cruise Wants to Help You

Here's your daily dose of freak.

Honestly, he could get nominated for this one. Much better than his performance in Minority Report, but not as good as A Few Good Men.

More on Cohen's Hit Job

Sully echoes my sentiment:

"If Obama has to disown a man he has never had anything to do with and a man whose toxic racist politics Obama has consistently and continuously opposed with all his might, then every black candidate is forced to jump through Cohen's petty little racist litmus test. They're all guilty of anti-Semitism until proved innocent. And Cohen's transparent disavowals of such an insinuation make it worse not better."

But it makes for great reading.

The Latest Hit Piece

Richard Cohen at Wapo asks why Obama doesn't get 'outraged' that his minister gave Louis Farrakhan an award, although he admits Obama's never shown an ounce of anti-semitism:

"It's important to state right off that nothing in Obama's record suggests he harbors anti-Semitic views or agrees with Wright when it comes to Farrakhan. Instead, as Obama's top campaign aide, David Axelrod, points out, Obama often has said that he and his minister sometimes disagree. Farrakhan, Axelrod told me, is one of those instances.

"Fine. But where I differ with Axelrod and, I assume, Obama is that praise for an anti-Semitic demagogue is not a minor difference or an intrachurch issue. The Obama camp takes the view that its candidate, now that he has been told about the award, is under no obligation to speak out on the Farrakhan matter. It was not Obama's church that made the award but a magazine. This is a distinction without much of a difference. And given who the parishioner is, the obligation to speak out is all the greater. He could be the next American president. Where is his sense of outrage?"

Get it? No? Neither do I. Does Cohen mean that Obama's responsible for every jerk thing that happens or just the ones related to his church, or dare I say, his faith? If every parishioner in every church, regardless of denomination, had to get 'outraged' over what their minister said or did, well, we'd be a world of pissed off people.

Of course, when you read between the lines, you see that this is really all about Obama's race. This is Cohen's little way of reminding us that a) Obama's black, and b) Some black people don't like white people, ergo, Obama probably doesn't like white people, especially if he 'doesn't get outraged.' Think I'm wrong, well replace every instance of 'Obama' the above article with your favorite white politician, substitute 'Farrakhan' with 'Jena 6', and then talk about that white politician's 'lack of outrage' and see if you don't find the thought that maybe that white politician's a racist crossing your mind. It's a miserable hit piece disguised as journalism, so don't be surprised if it's on the news for the rest of the week.

Obama, Hilary, and MLK

So here's the rundown on that MLK thing going on between Hil and Obama, as I see it. Somewhere in the middle of this race someone likened Obama to JFK and MLK, and for some reason this pissed off Hilary who said that it was really LBJ that had more to do with the civil rights movement then MLK. Some black dude agreed and some other black dude disagreed and then Hil went on MTP and Tim Russert asked some dumb question about it and Hil said MLK was wack, leading some white woman to say that Tiger Woods should get lynched, which then led Tony Romo to take Jessica Simpson to Cabo which led to the Cowboys getting beaten by the Giants which then made Terrell Owens to cry and Mary J. Blige to take some steroids. Well then this got so many cameras running that the Earth heated up and Antarctica melted.

So, in short, John McCain became the next president of a giant ice cube.

Weeee! Set a new record on most links in one post! I am the man!

Say What?

Ok, it's not surprising that several people in the entertainment world have taken steroids. And it's not surprising that several people in hip-hop have taken steroids. After all what would rock stars be if they didn't dip into illegal drugs. But Mary J. Blige? MARY FRIGGIN J. BLIGE? What the hell does she need steroids for? She pitching for the Yankees this year? What the hell? I mean who's next? Stephen Colbert? Huey from the Boondocks? Or that skinny kid from Superbad? Am I taking steroids? What was in that cream? Oh Jezz.

Hit Jobs

Seems to me we all know what kind of dirty tricks Hil and her posse are capable of, I'm just wondering, does she really want to get into the ring with, not Barack, but Michelle regarding old news? Mrs. Obama doesn't seem like the type of woman who's capable of standing on the sidelines while her husband gets eviserated, and with the amount of baggage that the Clinton's bring to the table, combined with her backing by Chris Rock, she could put on a whole HBO special. That would be totally awesome.

See What Hil Set Off

Now Terrell Owens is weeping:




In other news, Terrell Owens just won the Texas Democratic primary.

More Delegate Foolishness

Sorry it's not Sanjaya, it's really Ricky the Dragon Steamboat.

Oh and give yourself a pat on the back if you remember Ricky the Dragon Steamboat. Then change your Depends.

A Bloomberg Candidacy

Yes, that's how he dresses for work every day.

Seriously though, there's been a lot of discussion regarding a potential presidential bid by Mayor Mike. Many pundits, including myself, have questioned the viability of his potential run, the largest criticism being that as an independent agent of change Bloomy wouldn't be unique considering the alternatives of Edwards and Obama. This has led many to write him off. However Bloomy continues forward and being that is the case one needs to see what he'll bring to the table when he runs.

First off, rumors have spread of Mike's willingness to spend up to one billion of his own fortune to run. That's a one and a LOT of zeroes. Anyone with a billion dollars to spend instantly becomes a viable candidate. If I had a billion dollars to run I'd be a viable candidate. So would Ron Paul for that matter. That kind of wealth automatically gets you a seat at the table. Furthermore, he can use that independent wealth to make the case that he's not in the pockets of lobbyists, a direct challenge to Edwards' platform. Of course, it's also hard to say you're not for the boss if you're the boss yourself, but that didn't stop Ross Perot from running a darn good populist campaign.

Really though, the most frightening aspect of a Bloomberg campaign for the Democratic contenders is his aura of competency and financial savvy. There is no doubt that Bloomberg fiscally changed around NYC, and he runs this city like a well oiled machine without using the fascist tactics employed by the former mayor who's name rhymes with Assholeani. (Not really, but New Yorkers will get my point). He's a living testament that you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar, and when you can do that in the biggest city in the world it, like Rommey's pitch, makes the case for having executive experience that eclipses senatorial experience.

Bloomberg's biggest challenge though is coalescing that into a workable pitch. No one can run on competency alone. (Here's the slogan, "A Technocrat for a Better Tomorrow". Sounds like Mike Dukakis in '88) There must be a 'bigger picture' that he can sell to the populace in which his business and managerial skill is a method for making this 'picture' come alive. It may be sad, but a the country would rather go for the dream than the reality even if that dream is but a dream. Bloomy is a work horse, but if he wants to become president he needs to transform himself into a stallion.

How Do You Stop Tiger?

By lynching him, of course:




Honestly, I don't know if she should be fired or not. It doesn't look as if her intent was to be racist, and Tiger has forgiven her, but what a DUMB thing to say. That's like saying Cory Pavin can be stopped if you dropped him in an oven. (He's Jewish by the way).

Funny note: Turns out lynching Tiger IS the only way to stop him. Go figure.

In Case You Were Wondering

This is the girl that the French President is dating.

Just saying.

Why People Get Pissed Off About Primary Politics

In reading this Yglesias post, I did my own searching and discovered that Obama, while losing the NH popular vote somehow won more delegates than Hil and is leading the Dems in overall delegates.

At this rate Sanjaya will get the nomination come Summer.

Pole Jockey of the Day

Andrew Sullivan (and no, it's not a gay joke) for riding John-Let's go bomb Iran-while we stay in Iraq for 100 years-McCain's decrepit tip. With quotes like:

"If it's McCain versus Clinton this fall, he'll be very hard to beat."

And,

"If it's McCain versus Clinton, I start looking to support the Republican again. I'm not the only one."

It makes you wonder if he was supporting Obama because of (as he mentioned on his Colbert show appearance), "Obama's opposition to the war, and his transparency" or if it was because he looks good in a bathing suit (and that is a gay joke).

Random Thoughts on the NH Primary

1) First off, I was way, way too bitter regarding Hilary. Congratulations to Hil on a well run campaign that surprised all the pundits and polls. She deserved it.

2) I am WAY too invested in an Obama win. While I do believe that Obama would be the best choice in the 08 Election (Because of a) His ability to work with opposition and b) his transparency) that doesn't mean that Edwards or Hil wouldn't make suitable candidates or Presidents.

3) Furthermore, after listening to Chris Matthews talk about the endurance of the McCain's campaign (and he did it without talking about McCain's 'manly musk', yeah, I'm surprised too). I wonder if a loss in NH for Obama isn't a good thing for his supporters and America. After all, Obama really hasn't faced loss and knowing how a candidate can take defeat and whether they have endurance is important in knowing what type of leader they can be. And Lord knows, as President you'll take A LOT of losses (Unless you're Bush after 9/11, then you get handed the keys to the tank).

4) One also has to remember that Obama outspent Hil by 2 million in Iowa, and didn't spend as much time in NH as Clinton. Obama backers have to remember that this election isn't going to be a cakewalk greased by Obama's eloquence. There's going to be more struggle ahead, and a hell of a lot more dirty tricks. This thing is far from over.

5) What's up with girls names Fatima? Who puts the word 'fat' in a girls name?

Bitter, Bitter Thought of the Night

I know it's too close to call, and I don't want to jinx it, but should Clinton win in N.H then my bitter thought is:



All she has to do is cry 48 more times and she'll have the nomination in the bag.

You should see how I am when I actually lose. I literally bleed on myself.

Obama Wins in Iowa

I really don't wanna go a wet one like Chris Matthews, nor do I want to inflate the significance to this moment like Sully, but it's apparent that what we saw in Iowa last night was historic and shows an incredible shift in both race relations and the direction that America wants to follow. Watch the video above. I used to think that the only way a black man could get a crowd of aged whites around him like that is if he had a ball or bible in his hand or a noose around his neck. But not only has Obama made this possible but he's doing it by running a perfect campaign and staying on message. I can't help thinking that when I see him now I'm seeing what it must have been like to watch JFK and RFK run, and if he can keep up this kind of momentum he really can be President of the United States.

Congrats also to Edwards, with his strong showing, (Obama-Edwards ticket? Only if you want Christ Matthews to explode in his pants) the entire Iowa Democratic party for it's turnout and strong registration drive, and to the other ten republicans who voted for their minister, er, I mean candidate.

I'm Back

Sorry for the long delay. But the GRE's are over, I've just about handed in all my grades, and all applications are submitted. Let the blogging begin!

Sully Endorses Paul

Talk about a 180--from supporting Bush to this:

"But the deeper reason to support Ron Paul is a simple one. The great forgotten principles of the current Republican party are freedom and toleration. Paul's federalism, his deep suspicion of Washington power, his resistance to government spending, debt and inflation, his ability to grasp that not all human problems are soluble, least of all by government: these are principles that made me a conservative in the first place. No one in the current field articulates them as clearly and understands them as deeply as Paul. He is a man of faith who nonetheless sees a clear line between religion and politics. More than all this, he has somehow ignited a new movement of those who love freedom and want to rescue it from the do-gooding bromides of the left and the Christianist meddling of the right. The Paulites' enthusiasm for liberty, their unapologetic defense of core conservative principles, their awareness that in the new millennium, these principles of small government, self-reliance, cultural pluralism, and a humble foreign policy are more necessary than ever - no lover of liberty can stand by and not join them.

"He's the real thing in a world of fakes and frauds. And in a primary campaign where the very future of conservatism is at stake, that cannot be ignored. In fact, it demands support.

"Go Ron Paul!"

I can't deny it--I'm feeling the Paul spirit myself.

Doing Their Job

Chris Dodd this week is actually campaigning by doing a strange thing--his job:

"With the Iowa caucuses just two and a half weeks away, the candidates have pretty much taken up residence in the state, with one conspicuous exception. This morning will find Senator Chris Dodd on the Senate floor, where he plans to be staging a filibuster against the telcom immunity provision in the FISA bill. As we've written here before, Dodd's opposition has won him much love from the netroots. But it's not exactly the best timing from a conventional political perspective. (Dodd, after all, moved his family to Iowa in October.)

"A campaign official tells me: "He understands that he should probably be in Iowa campaigning, but the Constituion and the rule of law are Dodd's passion. He has a deep history with it and fundamentally believes that we decrease our standing in the world when we don't live up to our values. And when that happens we weaken our national security.""

That scores some points with me.

Surprise, surprise

Get a Cash Advance

Who would have thunk it?

Just Thinking

If the Hil bomber really wanted to kill himself, he should have gone to Guiliani's HQ. Guiliani would have killed him...and then swallowed his soul.

Kucinich on Tucker

Watch our Congressman screw this cocky son-of-a-bitch:




Yeah Tucker, the VP really does nothing. Did someone got their degree from a Cracker Jack box? Or was he busy doing something else?

The RAPEX!

Yes, the wave of the future, the anti-rape device:

"Later this month, South African women will be able to purchase the Rapex device, marketed as the "anti-rape condom." The rapex, shaped like a female condom, is worn internally and equipped with 25 teeth in its lining.

"The inventor of Rapex, South African Sonette Ehler, a former medical technician, got the idea when a traumatized rape victim lamented to her, "If only I had teeth down there.""

I think it's a good idea, but I wonder--it looks sort of big. What if your attacker has a really, really, tiny penis?

Steve Carell has Bigger Balls then the Democrats

No literally...he does. From Kos:

"One of the first shows to shut down production because of the WGA strike was The Office. One of the reasons? WGA member Steve Carell refused to cross the picket line, with what, if the rumor is true, would have to be one of the great reasons of all time:

"Additionally, I've been told that Steve Carell informed NBC he is unable to report to work because he is suffering from “enlarged balls.” Not just enlarged, I'd say, but brass ones. The source on this one adds, "We wish him a happy, slow recovery.""

Now if Steve Carell can walk away from a multi-million dollar a year job why can't the Democrats impeach a VP with the lowest, or close to the lowest approval ratings ever? Did politicians' brains go on strike too?

There's a Reason Why There's a 'Man' in Olbermann

Too bad you couldn't put a "The" in there as well.

Last night he addressed the impeachment catastrophe as his number 5 pick on The Countdown. Video below:




I still don't think I've received a satisfactory reason why the Democrats folded, but the discussion is highly appreciated.

Supporting the Troops

1 in 4 homeless are veterans:

"Veterans make up one in four homeless people in the United States, though they are only 11 percent of the general adult population, according to a report to be released Thursday.
And homelessness is not just a problem among middle-age and elderly veterans. Younger veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan are trickling into shelters and soup kitchens seeking services, treatment or help with finding a job."

Conyers says "Impeachment is off the table"

More disappointment:

"The latest Democrat "saviour" to flip flop 180 degrees in light of their victory is Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich. Presumed to become chairman of the House Judiciary Committee in January, Conyers today said that impeachment of President Bush "is off the table."


"In this campaign, there was an orchestrated right-wing effort to distort my position on impeachment," Conyers said in a statement released by his Judiciary Committee spokesman. "The incoming speaker (Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.) has said that impeachment is off the table. I am in total agreement with her on this issue: Impeachment is off the table."


Conyers seems to have forgotten that last December he laid out the grounds for impeachment in a 350 page long report called "The Constitution in Crisis: The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution and Cover-ups in the Iraq War" and later updated to add "illegal domestic surveillance.""

You want to know the worse part of this? Hearing the heartbreak in my Dad's voice as he watches the Democratic party fall apart before his eyes. I'm equally disgusted.

Roll Call on Impeachment

Vote count on Cheney impeachment vote here. The whole episode laid out here.

More on Cheney Impeachment

Took long enough. Here's a bit more from the NY Times.

Bizzaro World

Sigh...I don my fedora with my purely symbolic Press pass stuck in the brim wearily. As you may have noticed I haven't posted in about a month, not because there hasn't been news, but because I am extremely burdened down with work, GREs, marriage, yadda, yadda, yadda; and, frankly, I wasn't planning another post until the new year. But yesterday something so insane happened that I thought I was in bizzaro world. I had to log in again.

What you probably don't know: Dennis Kucinich, Congressman from Ohio and long shot presidential candidate, had submitted a resolution calling for the impeachment of VP Dick Cheney in April, and yesterday it came to the house floor. What happened next, was mind boggling:

"House Republicans on Tuesday prevented Democratic leaders from blocking a resolution to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney. [Yeah, you read that right]

"The vote to table the privileged resolution, offered by Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinch, began as a largely party-line vote to kill the measure, but Republicans developed a strategy to force Democrats to debate the resolution by supporting Kucinich. GOP leaders felt as though it was in their interest to debate the measure because it would make Democrats look bad.
After more than an hour of waiting for the vote to close, the motion to table the resolution failed by a vote of 162-251 after Democratic leaders failed to convince a group of liberal caucus members to side with them."

So are you following this? Kucinich's bill, thought to be an easy kill, was then supported by the GOP and nearly killed by Democrats, who were then forced to push the resolution into the Democratic controlled Judicary Committee, where it will be used by Nancy Pelosi as scratch paper for her to doodle new ways to fold to the Bush administration.

Oh but wait, it gets worse.

I wake up today figuring that they'll be some coverage on it either in the M$M or the indie left blogs. I mean the impeachment of a Vice-President, just that alone sounds like news, not counting the Machiavellian maneuvers that kept it alive. You'd figure they're be something right?

Wrong.

Instead there was nada. Nothing. Squat-diddly. I've heard feathers land on pillows that make more noise. The only substantial response I received to this monumental news was from Sully, who, sadly, sums up my feelings perfectly:

"A great idea. [Impeachment] The man is a war criminal, and has done more to undermine our Constitutional balance than any man since Richard Nixon. Secretive, incompetent, belligerent, contemptuous of the rule of law, there is barely a bad decision this president has made that doesn't have Cheney's fingerprints on it. Of course, the Democrats are scared of taking on this man. But they are, by and large, a bunch of empty suits (and one botoxed empty pant-suit). I'm delighted the Congress is finally tackling the issue of the vice-president's attack on the constitution. If done right, it could help air the fundamental indecency that Cheney represents. But, of course, it won't be done right. Which is why I remain someone who, abandoned by the current Republicans, still can't even think of identifying as a Democrat."

But I might even go farther--fear can no longer be an issue for Democrats, because fear implies that there is a substantial chance for reprisal. On all the issues that the Democrats claim they stand for: ending the war, ending torture, curtailing the patriot act, and restoring habeus corpus, the public supports them. Furthermore, there are significant cries for impeaching both Bush and Cheney. If anything, a public debate and investigation into these men will hem up the widening gaps in our Constitution and prevent politicians from taking advantage of the public again. So why wouldn't the Democrats want to have this discussion? I fear a much sinister purpose, that I'm hesitant to put forth; so, rather, I'll state it in more philosophical terms. When the opposition party no longer opposes, it becomes time for those who support them to look to other leaders. Now I'm not saying I'm abandoning the Democrats, because with Giuilani in the race the devil I know is definitely worse than the devil I don't know, and I'm still tempted by the candidacy of Obama. But yesterday was a low point, for not just the Democrats, but really for the entire left wing, who, through their silence, were just as acquiescent about their representatives' wrongs as conservatives, like Sully, who were silent when Bush began to trample on the Constitution. Frustration and anger will breed strange bedfellows.

PS: Yeah, yeah, I know Me + Sully = "strange bedfellows", purely metaphoric. Or is it... :)