It's been quite a long time since my last post (!) -- did you miss me? Bet you thought I died, or better yet with the election of Obama that I was content to stop blogging now that our national nightmare (GW/Cheney) was over. Wrong on both counts.

Admittedly, with the Bush reign of incompetence no more, I did find fewer things to raise the blood pressure. However, by no means has the new guy in the White House been a bang-up success, and many of his supporters -- including myself -- will tell you about our great frustration with how he has let us down, repeatedly. His excessive willingness to proffer compromise with Republicans who only wish to see him out of office, his seemingly inability to grow a spine and fight for what he believes in ala FDR, his fear that he will be perceived as a -- brace yourself -- "liberal" despite the fact that right-wingers portray him to be much farther to left than he actually is, ultimately alienating the many who put him in office just two short years ago.... The list goes on and on.

Anyway, I'm back and I hope to return to my schedule of posting entries daily. As always, I'd love to receive emails from readers.

As always, Rachel is dead-on correct:

That guy right there, last guy there was Phil Gingrey. He was the one at the end, right after John Boehner — Phil Gingrey expressing his grave concern about how much this [health-care bill] costs.

To be clear, the CBO is projecting that this bill will cut the deficit by $138 billion over 10 years. You can see it right there. $138 billion, not added to the deficit, but subtracted from the deficit.

This is the same Phil Gingrey and the same John Boehner who voted for the Medicare Part D drug benefit in 2003. When the CBO scored that bill, at that time, the CBO said that bill would raise the deficit by $394 billion, and yet, Phil Gingrey and John Boehner now so piously concerned about how much things cost, happily voted for Medicare Part D anyway.

When Republicans passed the Bush tax cuts that same year, the CBO score of that one at that time said that legislation would raise the deficit by $349 billion. And Republicans, including Phil Gingrey, had no problem voting yes. When Republicans passed the first Bush tax cuts in 2001, the CBO score of that one at that time said it would raise the deficit by $1.3 trillion — trillion with a “T.” And Republicans, including John Boehner, went along for that ride, too.

So, let‘s just make sure we‘re here on the same page, OK? Phil Gingrey and John Boehner say yes to adding $400 billion to the deficit for Bush‘s Medicare thing, yes to adding $350 billion to the deficit for Bush‘s first tax cuts for rich people, yes to adding $1.3 trillion to the deficit for Bush‘s other tax cuts. Those three votes projected to add $2 trillion to the deficit. Votes yes on all of those.

Lack of consistency? Hypocritical? Nah, it's just liberal spin and mumbo-jumbo from that leftist, pinko Rachel.

Never mind that she cites non-partisan CBO numbers through out. To reiterate, Republicans didn't seem to have a problem with adding $2 trillion to the deficit when voting in favor of Bush-era legislation. However, they are more than willing to get hysterical and cry foul about costs now that they're in the minority -- even though the health-care bill is projected to cut the deficit by $1.3 trillion. So we're talking a total swing of $3.3 trillion, not chump change by any means.

Let's see if the mainstream media can convey to the public this fairly straight-forward contrast in absurdity.

The CBO says the health-care bill will reduce the deficit by $130 billion in the first 10 years, and cut the deficit by $1.2 trillion (with a "T") in the second decade.

In other words, Obama's health-care reform effort will eventually pay for Bush/Cheney's (illegal) war.

Michael Tomasky writes:

And remember, as I've said several times now: take the poll numbers on reform with a grain of salt. Republican opposition is like 95-5, which skews overall polls. The important thing is how it plays among independents. They're opposed now, but hardly by overwhelming margins. By changeable margins, if they can be persuaded to see the benefits.

It's my understanding that health care reform in the state of Massachusetts was at first not all that popular, but has since become very popular.

This is the GOP's and insurance companies biggest fear that they're not telling us: that this reform will eventually work, that it will eventually effect beneficial change for many, and that it will eventually become very popular. And when that happens, the Republicans will starkly, nakedly be seen on the wrong side of the issue, and if the Dems properly manage it (always a big "if"), it will spell doomsday for the GOP come November.

It's this very probable scenario that drives the GOP and insurance companies to try as hard as they can to block reform. Their livelihoods and positions of power depend on its failure -- and they're certainly not going to make the real reason for their stiff opposition widely known or plainly evident.

Anthony Weiner kicks some GOP butt. Always refreshing to see a Dem with a spine.

More encouraging signs:

Recent successes in killing or capturing top Taliban leaders have shaken the confidence of the militant organization and raised gnawing doubts in the minds of front-line fighters, the top allied leader in Afghanistan said Thursday.

"You see a weakening of the organization's confidence," U.S. Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal told USA TODAY at his headquarters in Kabul.

If this series of successes were occurring under Bush/Cheney, you'd be hearing about it via a two-ton megaphone. Instead, this enormously significant progress in the region is receiving woefully inadequate coverage -- certainly when compared to what we were accustomed to with the prior administration.

Recall the many Republicans who conveniently used the recent spate of cold weather and ample snow (to think, for this to happen in the winter!) to scoff at climate change. Once again, they have to eat their words.

"January, according to satellite (data), was the hottest January we've ever seen.... Last November was the hottest November we've ever seen, November-January as a whole is the hottest November-January the world has seen...."

Dick Cheney -- survivor of five, yes, five heart attacks -- the poster child for what good health care coverage can do for you.

"He's had high-quality medical care and insurance, probably through most of his life," said Dr. Albert Wu at the Bloomberg School of Public Health. "That's probably Cheney's largest advantage."
<..>
"Surviving five heart attacks is certainly impressive, but the man himself is not a miracle," Wu said. "He's just been lucky enough to have good, consistent care."

Rachel Maddow has not been on TV for that long (about 18 months) and yet in that time she's become one of the hardest-hitting, high-impact truth tellers on the tube. She doesn't hesitate to call out hypocrisy, blatant wrong-doing and when politicians simply lie. She deserves some kind of broadcasting award, no one else is doing what she's been doing for many months now.

Here's a good example, a complete take down of GOP hypocrisy, showing Republican wind-bags criticizing the stimulus bill, voting against it, but then showing up to have their picture taken when the big dollars are being dolled out. Classic stuff.

And by the way, where were these Republicans when GW was running up the deficit to the tune of $1+ trillion? I don't recall their red-faced outrage then....

It didn't take long after putting up my blog post Monday for reports to come in that several high-ranking Taliban leaders had been captured. The arrest of Mullah Baradar, Taliban's top military commander, is being heralded as the most significant capture since 9/11. It appears with Obama in the WH that Pakistan has started to cooperate and work with our people in the region. For years Bush/Cheney could not get this to happen.

What say you now Mr. Thiessen?

Dana Milbank, a pompous, phone-it-in, more-inner-beltway-than-Broder "journalist" (hack)?? Nah, no way.

Just when you think their level of hypocrisy and hopped-up outrage couldn't be topped, they continue to surprise....

The latest: President Obama is killing too many terrorists. Yes, he's been too successful at taking out those which we presumably want taken out.

As usual, where to start... Mind you, this piece was not written by some big-gun neocon foreign policy expert, or a renowned professor on foreign affairs, or even a high-ranking retired military officer, but rather it's the work of Marc Thiessen, a former speechwriter for Bush II. My knees shiver given the level of assumed knowledge and authority on the subject. (Gads, it's like having the hired "certified" resume writer do the actual job as opposed to the candidate vying for it).

But just imagine if a piece like this appeared during Bush/Cheney's reign, accusing them of killing too many terrorists. Oh, the outcry that would've occurred from the screeching right, the fulminating condemnation riddled with labels like "unpatriotic," "enemy sympathizer" and "treason" to name a few. Yet here we are, this tripe published without a peep from the Country First crowd. Just crickets.

Not to mention the idiocy regarding the logic in the article. For one, at the start of this "War on Terror," such senior al Qaeda operatives were likely less submerged and more "available" for capture, but now years later it's apparent they've adapted and are more certain to be deeply hidden in the mountain ranges of Afghanistan or across the border in Pakistan, making it much more difficult for our forces to actually capture them alive. Thus, the new tactic using drones, i.e. they adapt, we adapt. Duh.

In addition, Thiessen lists several captured terrorists and then proceeds to mention several thwarted attacks on the U.S., as if they're linked. Can anyone provide proof that by torturing any of these detainees that it produced information which directly halted a future attack? Yes, we've seen and heard these things uttered, often, but never do you see anything of real substance backing it up. Notta.

Much of the piece is simply a plea to capture more to torture more -- never mind the overwhelming weight of the evidence has argued quite the contrary, that such illegal methods are counter-productive (uh, not to mention, as I mentioned, illegal!).

In the end, it's just another in a series of baseless attacks against the guy in office who beat their guy in Nov08. If Obama were perceived to be not doing enough regarding hunting down terrorists, you'd certainly read/hear about it, but given the ample evidence showing otherwise they decide to attack from another angle ("How can we criticize Obama for being too successful at hunting down terrorists?"). As much as Obama has stepped up efforts to fight terrorism since becoming president, what the opposition party has done in that time is just step up attacks against our presiding president.

Country first? Yeah, right.

Must listen: Beach House, Teen Dream. An astounding, stupendous collection of songs. Mesmerizing, incredibly melodic, and yet not cloying, rewarding again and again with each listen. Wow.

More examples of the Democrats playing the role of political nitwits: here, here, and here.

In this age of craven, hardball politics, it's amazing they ever win any elections.

From Balloon Juice, a reader asks the question, "Why can’t we have a nationally televised debate about HCR and stimulus?" John Cole responds:

First off, Democrats already tried to do this over the summer- they were called town hall meetings, and basically they were freeped by a coalition of corporate backed teabaggers, spooked blue hairs who wanted to keep government out of their medicare, shameless Republicans interested in political advantage, and, in no small part, the mainstream media who simply regurgitated all of their bullshit.

I have seen nothing that would suggest that a national town hall meeting would lead to anything different. As entertaining as it was watch Obama make the Republicans look like the idiots that they are at their retreat last week, what really changed? They still believe all their talking points, as do their teabagging base, because this isn’t about facts or logic or reason, this shit is religion to these folks. And it wasn’t more than a few hours that our Politico inspired media was offering “equal time” for the Republicans to edit their remarks and inject more bullshit into the debate. Jeb Hensarling was given multiple opportunities for a do-over immediately after being depantsed, and guess what the media did?

That’s right- they just wrote down what he said and didn’t bother to fact check it or point out he is full of shit. And so it goes.

Will Republicans heartily back bank reform? I doubt it, very much. Between the GOP being in the back pocket of the financial lobby and odds favoring their continued insistence to just be a hemorrhoid to Obama, they're likely hard had work right now to come up with ways to frame Obama's proposal as unpatriotic or an unjust curtailment of free market activity, which will ultimately lead to economic calamity.

Make no mistake, they will indeed come up with something to sink this. They effectively did it with HCR, throwing the kitchen sink at it (death panels, kill grandma, will balloon deficit, doctor rationing, government takeover and overreach, first step to socialized medicine). Just wait, the fear-mongering will start up again, and predictably too many will allow it to freak them out and adversely affect their ability to make rational decisions.

It's sad but it works, so the GOP will continue to got there.

A bit too cynical perhaps, hope I'm wrong. But precedent dictates otherwise....

Unfortunately, very true:

This really is a defining moment for both Obama and the Democratic Party more broadly. So far both have failed miserably: the party is in a state of meltdown, surrendering completely to a resurgent Republican narrative, refusing to fight for anything it believes in, and caving in to a truly toxic combination of electoral fear and narrow interest group parochialism. For his part, Obama seems either unable or unwilling to rally his troops. I'm not sure which. But the American public really needs to hear some conviction from him, and so far they haven't. He's remained aloof from the healthcare upheaval, pivoted on financial regulation in a way that looks driven more by politics than by core beliefs, and has just generally sounded more chastened than reinvigorated.

This really needs to turn around fast. Another week like this — hell, another day or two like this — and we might as well start measuring the Oval Office drapes for the upcoming Cheney/Palin administration. It's time for everyone to take a deep breath and grow a pair.

My fear is it may actually be too late. The level and depth of disgust by frustrated Obama supporters and his diehard foes collectively may be too chiseled in stone at this point to overcome. It really is amazing to witness how far Obama has slid so quickly. Yes, we've seen the same in other presidents before him, but wasn't Obama going to be different...?

Well said by the terrific Dick Polman:

And yet...the Democrats really have no alternative but to enact something. They're too far in to back out.

If they now abandon health reform, after seven fitful decades, they will lose politically at both ends of the spectrum. Since they're already on record, in both chambers, as having voted Yes on health reform, a retreat at this point would give the Republicans a two-fer message: "Democrats engineered a socialist takeover of the health care system - until they flip-flopped! They were for a takeover until they were against it!" And the Democratic base would simply stay home on the '10 election day for its own reasons - having become convinced that it doesn't pay to elect large Democratic majorities, since those majorities clearly lack the cajones to get anything done.

The only viable alternative for Democrats is to persevere and stick to their policy convictions (thus keeping faith with their base), and remind themselves that Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush stuck to theirs even when public opinion was against them (Bush, especially, persevered on his ambitious Medicare drug prescription bill in December 2003 even though only 32 percent of the general public, and only 26 percent of seniors, supported it). It would better for Democrats to have something affirmative to show for their efforts, to campaign this year as the party that (in the face of Republican opposition) barred insurance companies from dropping sick people, that barred insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, and that extended health coverage to millions who lacked it before. This political option might not work either, but it's surely more attractive than the fetal position.

Great blog entry by Steve Benen. Another in a long series of examples of why/how Karl Rove has zero credibility and just spews forth fictional nonsense distorted to fit his alternative reality.

The Washington Post recently invited various politicos to offer the Democratic Party advice for 2010. The paper ran a 211-word missive from Karl Rove, which blamed Democrats for creating the "mess" his former boss left for Dems to clean up. In particular, Rove blasted Democrats for "running up" the debt.

Today, David Axelrod, after noting the irony of the Post inviting Rove to give Democrats suggestions, sets the record straight in the same paper.

The day the Bush administration took over from President Bill Clinton in 2001, America enjoyed a $236 billion budget surplus -- with a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. When the Bush administration left office, it handed President Obama a $1.3 trillion deficit -- and projected shortfalls of $8 trillion for the next decade. During eight years in office, the Bush administration passed two major tax cuts skewed to the wealthiest Americans, enacted a costly Medicare prescription-drug benefit and waged two wars, without paying for any of it.

To put the breathtaking scope of this irresponsibility in perspective, the Bush administration's swing from surpluses to deficits added more debt in its eight years than all the previous administrations in the history of our republic combined. And its spending spree is the unwelcome gift that keeps on giving: Going forward, these unpaid-for policies will continue to add trillions to our deficit.

This fiscal irresponsibility -- and a laissez-faire attitude toward the excesses of the financial industry -- helped create the conditions for the deepest economic catastrophe since the Great Depression.

Well, sure, if you want to bring reality into the debate.

Rumor has it the WaPo has already agreed to publish Rove's response to Axelrod's response to Rove's initial claim.

Here's a Karl back-peddle that's just hilarious. Of course, most of the people that watch and listen to The Turd likely have no clue regarding his hypocrisy, contradictions, lies, etc. It's what he banks on -- ignorance.

Glenn Beck referred to the current president as "a racist" and apparently Scott Brown, Republican running for Ted Kennedy's senate seat in MA, suggests Obama is a bastard child.

As Paul Krugman writes, "So will this actually make political waves? If Brown were a Democrat, it would instantly be a huge scandal. The outrage machine would be working overtime. And the news media would, of course, pick it up."

However, Brown is not a Democrat but rather a Republican, so needless to say his remarks are the equivalent of a tree falling in the woods with no one there to hear it.

As Steve Benen points out with the unexpected continuing popularity of Sen. John Ensign in his home state, "PPP's communications director joked, 'Cheating on your wife is a deal breaker for Republican voters -- but only if you're a Democrat.'...The moral of the story: adultery is fine, and hypocrisy is fine, just so long as you have an 'R' after your name."

Yes indeed, a completely different standard applies for those with a "D" next to their name versus an "R." I mean just imagine the outcry and scandal if a Democrat posed naked as Scott Brown did for Cosmopolitan magazine. Sadly, we've become so accustomed to this blatant double-standard that often times it doesn't register and we have to remind ourselves it still exists, now more than ever.

IF YOU ARE A MASSACHUSETTS RESIDENT, YOU HAVE TO GET OUT AND VOTE THIS TUESDAY (AND INFORM ALL FRIENDS AND FAMILY TO DO SAME)

It goes without saying that in one of the bluest states in the U.S., for a Dem to be neck/neck close with clearly a Bushian, non-moderate Republican says loads about Coakley's campaign (read: inept). But she is a Dem and if she loses it will change everything in DC. Already, because she has slipped into a dead heat race, many senior Republicans in Washington are exploiting this full tilt, saying MA represents a nationwide referrendum against health care reform and perceived overreach by government.

To some extent, I believe MA residents have grown so accustomed to Democrats leading races and winning that they got complacent, allowing Brown to sneak up in polls. Fortunately, this race has received tons of media coverage of late and should wake up the Dem faithful, having them turn out in droves on Tuesday.

If not, we get what we deserve.

Re Steve Benen's blog entry, I have to think that Lieberman wasn't delusional and politically stupid enough to not realize that his actions during the health care debate would result in such widespread disapproval by CT voters. He had to see it coming and quite frankly I'm willing to guess he didn't care.

2012 is a long way off so he either felt that was enough time to make plenty of amends to voters and hope they forgot, or more likely he had decided not to run for reelection. This way Joe could do right by his many corporate backers (read insurance companies), supporting their every desire, and in a few years end up working for them in some capacity -- much like his wife.

Just a guess.

There's much talk about the underwear bomber potentially having valuable info, and the sooner the better with regards to obtaining that info.

How about obtaining the info that McCain always bragged about...? You know, that he knew how to track down and capture (or kill) Osama bin Laden.

Funny, it's been over a year and no one has followed up with McCain concerning these statements and the valuable info he may know. But then there is the longshot chance that no one had ever taken him seriously and it was just another of many desperate campaign utterances, promising much but backed by nothing. Like "Country First" and "the fundamentals of our economy are strong."

Just when you thought Perino's comment (gaffe) couldn't be topped, along comes Rudy.... No domestic attacks under Bush? And yet one under Obama? WTF?

Either Rudy and Dana are completely clueless (very likely) or they believe they can say anything, no matter the veracity, and their doddering followers will just accept it without question. Probably a bit of both.

As is often the case, I spent New Years watching several Twilight Zone episodes (yearly marathon). While watching "The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street" episode, it occurred to me that much of this past decade could be distilled in this short study of paranoia and the human condition. Introduce some unknowns, then sit back and watch it happen. Watch "the monsters" take over.

In fact, the main theme of many a Twilight Zone episode is fear and the ugly effect(s) it has on us. Regular folk are shown in everyday lives, and then the fear begins to take hold, amplify and spread, and before you know it people become unglued and mayhem erupts.

I wonder what Rod Serling would've said about the fear-mongering perpetrated over the last several years. I believe he'd find it beyond shameful, but I don't think it would shock him in the least. If anything, he was trying to warn us, to not succomb to mindless fear, to resist acting irrationally driven by anxiety. But as much as we repeatedly watch TZ episodes again and again, year after year, it's as if we willfully overlook the larger, more meaningful underlying messages.

I don't know what's more frightening, the fact that many of us have given in to the scare tactics employed since 2002, or that we've neglected to heed the warnings conveyed by those before us (such as Serling and Orwell, to name two). In either case, ignorance is the common culprit.

Many on the left have been bemoaning the passage of the Senate health care bill, believing it has been gutted to the point where if anything it has become more of a Christmas gift to insurance companies, therefore better to sink it.

While there is much truth in this sentiment, the many positives in the bill have been seemingly tossed by the wayside, receiving little if any well-deserved attention. Ezra Klein and Kevin Drum have both done yeoman's work in their efforts to highlight many of the bill's pluses.

A key point Kevin makes is this imperfect attempt at reform is a move forward and essentially lays a foundation on which to build, to years down the road not just modify what is in need of fixing, but to also pass measures that compliment existing policy in the bill. Before you know it, a once severely compromised bill "matures" into an increasingly stronger bedrock of reform -- much like how coral serves as the foundational base of a reef. If not for the coral, all that follows in terms of growth and life forms taking hold would be impossible.

If anything, we should look at this bill as a first salvo or shot across the bow. It serves as a tipping point that could set the stage for several additional reform initiatives to come in the future. Looking back, we could one day attribute this bill as that which got the ball rolling. After all, civil rights reform or environmental progress did not come about overnight, with the passage of one comprehensive piece of legislation. It took several steps and much political debate and fights over years to achieve gradual, but meaningful, change. We should expect the same with health care.

In effect, with this bill insurance players may breathe a sigh of relief -- but going forward the extremely favorable terms they've been accustomed to should only get increasingly tougher. Like "peak oil," conditions have likely crested for these companies and their time of unfettered dominance is over. In exchange, we should finally get the health care system we not only deserve, but one that won't bankrupt us. It won't happen next year, or in 2011 for that matter, yet over time it will happen and this bill serves as a crucial starting point.

Happy Holidays & New Year!

WTF? In his annual hot-air fest of recognizing those individuals who were especially courageous during the year, Joe Klein awards a Teddy to -- wait for it -- David Frum. Yes, the once strident right-wing hack who is another wingnut who (supposedly) finally saw the light, the err of his ways, and has spent time trying to make amends by wishing his party would be less obstinate and unreasonable.

That takes courage? Are you kidding me?

And Frum doesn't sound like the sober-minded convert here....

But then maybe the award has something to do with this -- "The Sunshine Boys" are looking quite chummy....

I more/less agree with Kevin. After all the clamoring and drama concerning heath care reform, it won’t amount to squat for the 2010 elections.

The bill will pass and it will likely be forgotten within several weeks. It won't mean much for a few years and the media will have suffered from HC fatigue and look to move on. Tea baggers were not going to vote for Dems anyway, and upset liberals will eventually come to their senses.

Moderates and independents – who matter most during election years – will be influenced by issues other than health care. Perhaps Obama and the Dems know this, which in part is why get HC passed and done with sooner. The key will be what issues surface in the next several months that become the driving force re 2010 elections. But it won’t likely be health care.

It’ll be interesting to see which party is able to best manage the message re which issue(s) does rise to the top....

Thank you Think Progress for today's GOP Hypocrisy Moment.

John McCain: "I’ve been around here 20-some years. First time I’ve ever seen a member denied an extra minute or two to finish his remarks."

Flashback to 2002:

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator’s time has expired.

Mr. DAYTON. I ask for unanimous consent that I have 30 seconds more to finish my remarks.

Mr. McCAIN. I object.

Please.

Thanks to Kevin Drum, I'm just getting around to this doozy from Jonah Goldberg. Goldberg attempts to make the case the uber-rich are overburdened by pointing out that on an absolute basis the bottom 95% of income earners have paid 1/3 less in taxes, versus a doubling by the top 1% of income earners.

What he's reflecting is income has dropped by 1/3 for the bottom 95%, and risen by over 100% for the top 1% earners.

Whereas he seems to believe he's making an egalitarian case for the rich, in fact he's just illustrating what we've known for years: the affluent have gotten more affluent since 1980, and the less affluent have increasingly lagged behind.

As I've always said, you should root for wanting to pay more taxes -- as Jonah makes clear.

The right-leaning AP thoroughly reviewed Climategate and their verdict is pettiness exists but no fraud was found.

Further proof these people are certifiable:

"We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's term," she [Dana Perino] told Sean Hannity.

Food stamps now help feed one in four (25%) children. Simply astonishing.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding Kevin when he wrote, "I remain pessimistic on the ability of Congress to rein in the financial community in any serious way. They just don't have the power."

Assuming he doesn't mean willpower, then I beg to differ. I would argue that in fact Congress does have the power, but what they do lack is the will to confront the financial lobby that pays them quite well to look away. Laws and regulations could be passed that significantly curtail the wrongdoings perpetrated by these large firms, however our political system is so riddled with corporate influence nothing with teeth ever gets enacted.

But again, it's not that they don't have the power, it's that they don't have the incentive and/or fortitude to do what's right, and therefore piss off those entities which allow them to remain incumbents.

On a separate topic, I completely agree with Kevin when he discusses how Afghanistan could become a "political nightmare" for Obama:

[W]hat it demonstrates most strongly is the fantastic political nightmare involved in ever pulling out of a war that hasn't been decisively won. Vietnam is the big-ticket example here, of course, but there are better ones. Take Somalia. After the Black Hawk Down incident in 1993, conservatives demanded that Bill Clinton pull out immediately. Not another American life was worth risking for a barren patch of dirt on the Horn of Africa. Clinton refused, insisting that we "finish the work we set out to do," and kept troops in country for another six months before withdrawing in an orderly way.

And what happened? Conservatives turned around and immediately started building up a mythology that Clinton had lacked spine and immediately ran for the exits at the first sign of trouble. Just like a Democrat to be so weak-kneed! What's more, it's now received wisdom on the right that it was this panicky withdrawal that first convinced Muslim fanatics that America was weak and could be attacked with impunity. In the end, Clinton took a hit for withdrawal even though he was the one who insisted on not cutting and running.

If that's what happens to a Democratic president who played a hawkish role in a small, unimportant war, what would happen to a Democratic president who played a dovish role in a big, important war?

From the I Shit You Not File: Business Aims to Relax Bans on Products Made with Child & Slave Labor

Joe "You Lie!" Wilson had the following light bulb moment: if the public option was so good, then all Dems should want to join this plan. What an idiot. All members of Congress have government paid-for health care, i.e. they already more/less enroll in a public option plan. And by all accounts, all said members are very much satisfied and happy with their plan (ever hear of a person in Congress complain about their health care?).

Nicholas Kristof makes an excellent point that should be getting more mileage:

[T]here is one American health statistic that is strikingly above average: life expectancy for Americans who have already reached the age of 65. At that point, they can expect to live longer than the average in industrialized countries. That’s because Americans above age 65 actually have universal health care coverage: Medicare.

Once Americans reach and get beyond age 65, an inordinate number then go on to live well into their 80s. Mystery solved as to why this occurs: universal health care kicks in (Medicare). Another simple yet powerful piece of fact-based evidence that is not getting enough air play....

Kevin Drum reminds us of how things are likely to change fairly dramatically for Sarah Palin when she inevitably runs for prez in earnest:

Her fellow Republicans mostly treat her with cautious respect right now, but what will they say about her once they're all on stage together during the primary debates?

Yes, will they remain so respectful of her when she's on stage spouting her usual nonsense and drivel? Although like Joe Biden last year, they must be careful to avoid appearing overtly condescending or critical to her, on the other hand she was a relative newbie and fresh face then -- that won't be the case in 2011, when many would expect that by then she will have learned something of substance concerning policy. I for one am not holding my breath, but the point being she likely won't be treated with as much reverence the next time around.

To the idiotic, irrational, irresponsible labeling from the fear-mongering right:

Quote of the month:

"I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom."

What century is this?

Oh, and here are the 30 Republican who voted against an anti-rape bill. Have to love those family values....

And where are the religious pro-life folks regarding this story....? Love the zygote, hate the muscular dystrophy victim?

The House health care reform bill will save money, to the tune of over $100 billion in 10 years.

Would someone please inform Lieberman of this non-partisan fact....

A great collection of clips from that beacon of objective journalism, FOX News.

As always, imagine the screeching right's reaction if there was a far-left network that aired 24/7 this opinion-dressed-up-as-news stuff.... Fortunately, no one on the left would have the gumption or outright willingness to insult their viewers.

This should surprise no one:

The Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday released a copy of a long-suppressed report by officials in the George W. Bush administration concluding that, based on the science, the government should begin regulating greenhouse gas emissions because global warming posed serious risks to the country.

My italics regarding science.

You have to wonder how many other findings exist (not just about the environment) that the prior administration decided to suppress and that we'll eventually learn about during Obama's time in office. We really did have sort of a corporatist dictator for eight years.

So most of Howard Stern's listeners do not realize that they're gay??

It appears Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize has become just another reason for his enemies to dislike him that much more.

Never mind the fact that he had nothing to do with the winning verdict much less getting nominated in the first place. Or that he felt "humbled" by the award, also saying, “To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who’ve been honored by this prize.”

No, this didn't stop the blathering right from condemning Obama. But more so, if the dopes wanted to lambaste anything or anyone, they should've directed their ire towards the Nobel committee that decided to hand Obama the prize. It's not Obama's fault he was picked, and as for any of this nonsense that he should've declined accepting it -- pleeaasseee! Just imagine how he would've looked turning down such a prestigious award, the same bunch of wingnuts would've bashed him for being such a pretentious, egotistical elitist.

The sad truth remains: Obama can't win for losing with this cast of idiots. Bill Clinton had to put up with it for eight years, and now so also must Obama.

When we voted for change, were we duped?

Granted, Obama was (remains) light years better than the alternative running at the time, but that's not my question. Frank Rich's column today makes evident what has been true all along -- Obama is more of a typical politician than any so-called far-left radical. The latter characterization is simply used by nutball right-wing figures to stoke their crazed base.

But is Obama in fact so typical, so mainstream, that we're not going to get the kind of change we thought we were going to get....?

In other words, Reagan used to placate the religious right, tossing them gratuitous rhetoric when necessary but never really getting behind anything they favored to the point of instituting real change. Will this be our fate ala Obama...? Wink, wink, nod, nothing...?

I always knew Mickey Kaus was more like Mickey Mouse....

He must be Slate's appeasement to the wingers.

Here's something shocking:

On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush's two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country's condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton's two terms, often substantially.

Apparently Rep. Joe "You Lie!" Wilson was for providing funds for illegal immigrants' health care before he was against it. These guys give hypocrites a bad name.

Glenn Beck and Fox News would like us to believe their DC rally had close to 2 million attendees, and some have even tried to use a fake photo to "prove" it. (Estimates had the crowd at 50,000 to 70,000).

Just look at the many lovely signs held by country-first Americans. I'm sure if signs even remotely as reprehensible as these were ever displayed during Bush/Cheney's eight years that the GOP would've remained as silent as they are now. Yeah, sure.

Knowing the south very well, Jimmy Carter speaks out and is very concerned (and rightly so).

The city of Philadelphia will close its public libraries. Unfortunately over time this will work to boost Glenn Beck's audience.

The indoctrination of our kids apparently begins with warning them about the perils of Facebook.... How clever in a sinister, subliminal way. I can't imagine what will be up Obama's sleeve next....

James Surowiecki seems to be reluctant to say what he really wants to say (which I suppose is understandable given he blogs for the esteemed New Yorker): that David Brooks is an idiot.

Surowiecki has posted several excellent blog entries of late. In another, he again makes mention of David Brooks, namely DB's belief that it would be politically "suicidal" for Obama to resort to reconciliation. Surowiecki rightly says nonsense, stating:

[W]here is the evidence that ordinary voters remember how laws were passed and reward or punish politicians based on that? On the contrary, voters judge politicians (to the extent that they make rational decisions) based on whether the laws they passed worked or not....Political victory on this issue isn’t going to be determined by how the law gets enacted. It’ll be determined by what happens once it is enacted.

Like Bill Kristol, 99.9% of the time it's best to do opposite what Brooks is advising. But more so, with Republicans refusing to negotiate in good faith concerning health care reform, their stiff-armed resistance serves as an opportunity for the Democrats. Use this issue to highlight the stark us-versus-them dynamic that has unfortunately taken hold over the last several weeks, to make it plainly evident for all to see via a go-it-alone course of action in crafting a reform bill. This way the Democrats will get all the credit.

Recall the numerous Republicans that resisted the passing of the stimulus money...? Recall again the numerous Republicans that eventually took credit for the stimulus money making its way through their respective states...? Deep down, they indeed fear that passage of health care reform without their involvement will leave them out in the cold when inevitably such reform is well-received, and in a year or two or three opposing Democrats can score huge political points by making it clear Republican X or Y voted against any beneficial change.

Continued resistance by Republicans should be treated and embraced by Dems in same spirit as Clint Eastwood's line, "Go ahead, make my day."

Surowiecki also writes about how many are advising Obama to behave more like FDR and simply ignore the GOP when it comes to health care reform. On this front I urge everyone to listen to the first segment of Thom Hartmann's Sept. 3rd radio show, where he specifically discusses this point and plays a tape of FDR making bold, emphatic statements.

I'm sympathetic towards this view, even though some may ask, "Where will this defiance get Obama in the long run?" I ask, what has his desire to work with Republicans gotten him up till now? Not much, and I would submit it's made him a weaker and less admirable president to a good number of the people who voted for him, in large part explaining the wane in his poll numbers. If he were to suddenly stand up to the GOP with take-charge backbone and stern language, I bet you'd see his poll numbers spike up dramatically.

By the same token, if the Dems go the recon route, meaning give the big FU to Republicans, then the public option should be included. To leave it out and still say the heck with the GOP is a transparent nod to the health care lobby.

And I thought with Obama's bottoms-up, grassroots win last November that he was less susceptible to being bought and sold by corporate interests -- can we see some evidence of that, please?!

Is this what the town hall meeting disgrace has come down to, a woman in a wheelchair trying to speak her mind about health care concerns, and many in the audience treating her anything but in a civil manner...?

Dick Armey and the GOP must be so proud....

The Dick Cheney Rolling Embarrassment Parade just never quits.... His latest plea for sympathy and voiced disdain for not being treated like the hero he believes himself to be was -- where else -- aired on FOX. He had this laughable removed-from-reality point to make:

I guess the other thing that offends the hell out of me, frankly, Chris, is we had a track record now of eight years of defending the nation against any further mass casualty attacks from Al Qaeda. The approach of the Obama administration should be to come to those people who were involved in that policy and say, how did you do it? What were the keys to keeping this country safe over that period of time?

Here's a guy who in that same interview categorically states, "I knew about the waterboarding." Last time I looked, waterboarding was torture and it violated international agreements and is a war crime. Yet he's "offended."

Oh, and I love the way he conveniently is off by a few years. Mr. VP, I believe your entire eight years, as you say, in office were not without an attack; I believe something really big occurred not too long after you took control of the country. Yes, it's one "incident" but it's the mother-of-all national security f*ck-ups, a hugely tragic event that if it occurred while say Clinton was top dog, the Republicans would've stormed the White House and drove him out with torches and rocks, and to this day we would've never stopped hearing about it, the blame, the condemnation, the incompetence.

And many would say that even one attack like 9-11 is too many, that something like that should've never happened in a country like ours, with the supposed level of intelligence that we've built up over many decades. But it did, unfortunately, and yet this shameless, delusional, sad man continues to spout fabricated untruths to an audience that by now has hopefully learned to ignore him.

Sarah Palin is a blithering idiot and Michele Bachmann is bat-sh*t crazy, but Betsy McCaughey is just coldly calculating and dangerous with the lies she spreads. She's done more to setback health care reform than any other single individual -- and that's saying quite a lot.

Mike Steele and the GOP were for Medicare cuts before they were against them, or they were against cuts after they were for them -- it's getting so ridiculous I'm confused.... Soon they'll be proclaiming the need for climate change legislation, blaming Dems for dragging feet on....

The fact is it's not the $100 billion per year that truly bothers Republicans. After all, past evidence shows them to be spendthrifts with our money. No, what bothers them is the $100 billion per year is going towards something they don't support and the Dems do, i.e. partisan fighting as usual. (Not to mention the campaign and lobby $$ falling out their back pockets).

It's not the cost or the budget deficit, it's the politics. And meanwhile 40-50 million people remain uninsured.

According to Sen. Grassley, he/she who shouts the loudest gets his attention and anything like polls be damned. So most people who work or are busy with family, etc., who can't attend these town hall meetings are ignored or are less meaningful to Sen. Grassley, as opposed to those constituents who get bused in -- oops, I mean who have the time to attend such meetings...?

How is it the voters in Iowa keep putting this guy in office? I was about to say that he's an idiot but rather the blame is on the voters...

Way to go Lawrence!



Exactly, Republicans demonize government-funded (not run) health care as socialism and evil, yet they're too gutless to repeal Medicare.... Oh, and Rep. Culberson receives government-funded health care like all others in Congress. If he felt it was so awful, he could always stop using it and seek out private insurance -- what do you say to that Rep. Culberson? Or will you dodge that question also...?

Very well said:

I still contend health care reform is over. The GOP and the fringe right will just move on to something else they find “objectionable” like this absurd accusation that voluntary counselling amounted to a panel of experts determining who should and should not live, the senior citizens seem overwhelmingly content to suckle at the public teat in regards to medicare while giving everyone else the bird, the insurance industry is playing both sides, half the Democrats are spooked by their own shadows, and the other half are in bed with the FIRE sector.

It is just over. And the Democrats have no one to blame but themselves. If the Republicans had majorities like the Democrats have right now, they would have abolished the IRS and the Department of Education, Bernie Madoff would be running social security, there would be an oil well in every backyard and off every inch of coast, we’d have mandatory prayer in schools, and the defense department budget would be doubled so we could have excellent adventures in Iran while we liberate Georgia from oppressive Russian rule. And we’d be doing it all with a top marginal rate of 3%.

It does seem like the Republicans can rule but can't govern, and the Democrats, well, can't seem to do either... They're on the right side of the issues but it's as if somebody needs to slap them all in the face and remind them of this fact.

About the government stimulus programs, Drew Matus, Senior U.S. Economist at BofA Merrill Lynch, recently wrote, "Coming at a key moment in the evolution of the economy, this boost was a welcome event that likely helped to prevent a bad situation from getting even worse."

True enough, yet the right-wing will choose to prematurely judge and conclude the stimulus is a bust.

For some proof to the contrary, click here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here. (I could've made the list longer).

For those who understand economics, if the government is going to elevate spending it should do so during recessionary times -- and this current downturn was in jeopardy of easily cascading into a full blown depression (oh, how we quickly forget). Funny, not too long ago that didn't stop the GOP-controlled government from spending like crazy during non-recessionary times.

But now they're newborn deficit hawks, quick to condemn the stimulus effort. Hilarious.

Pass something -- Obama will fix it. Let's hope.

I think most of us can agree, the free market can very often be a wonderful thing. I emphasize "often," meaning not always. For some (crucial) aspects of life, that old invisible hand just does not suffice. As it turns out, health care is one of them.

The Anonymous Liberal sums it up nicely:

Of course, if we were to let "liberty and market forces" do the rationing when it comes to health care for the elderly, the result would be no health care for most elderly Americans. That's because elderly people consume a lot of health care and therefore it makes no economic sense for private insurers to cover them (at least at affordable rates). That's why we have Medicare in the first place. That's the problem Medicare was designed to solve. It is thanks to the "government bureaucrats" that grandma gets to go to the doctor at all.

Simply put, but too simple for the public that is showing up at town halls, fired up with rage, fearing socialism and government takeover, all the while many of whom are happily enrolled in Medicare...?

• Democrats big problem: they reason, think and depend on facts, and they expect the same of others.
  
  "I think it is very hard because [Democrats] don't have the message machine the Republicans do," said George Lakoff, a UC Berkeley linguistics professor who has advised some Democrats on how to sharpen their message. "The Democrats still believe in Enlightenment reason: If you just tell people the truth, they will come to the right conclusion."
  
  
• "Adolf Hitler was for exterminating the weak, not just the Jews and stuff, and socialism -- that's what's going to happen," spoken by a woman who held a sign of Obama's image superimposed as a Nazi, and who's chronically ill mother gets expensive treatments thanks to "socialized" health care (Medicare). The amount of ignorance prevalent in this debate is astonishing.
  
  
• Worth a listen. Ronald Reagan in 1961 predicting much of what we're hearing today, that through Medicare our government will eventually take over our health care system, our freedom of choice, our way of life. Didn't happen, all fabricated lies to scare and frighten. Much like today.
  
  
• Newt Gingrich was apparently for latter-years counseling before he was against it. The hell with the actual policy or helping people, if the Dems are for it, he's suddenly against it.
  
  
• Michele Bachmann continues to delight the masses with her comedy act. Her latest crazed moment of humor: she criticized AmeriCorp, describing it as a nefarious government program that has "re-education" camps to brainwash our youth, and saying "as a parent, I would have a very, very difficult time seeing my children do this." Guess what? Her son recently signed up.
  
  
• A great fact-check page that clears up many lies being circulated about the health care bill.
  
  
• Out of the many hundreds of pages making up the proposed health care bill, if this is the best they could come up with, a fabricated lie about a "death panel," then it tells me there is quite a bit of good stuff in the bill.
  
  
• Regarding the nearing-end-of-days counseling, which would be paid for by the government, all the choices involved are made by the individual and no one else. If the person decided that he or she wished to try to live to be 200 years old, then the advice received leading up to that decision would be paid for. In fact, the provision specifically bans euthanasia as it's against states laws. So you see it's quite the opposite of "death" counseling.
  
  
• George Stephanopoulos schools Newt. Corrects him about the health advisor claim and about what isn't in the bill. But love the way Newt has a problem with our trusting the government -- the same government he didn't seem to have a problem with regarding torture, illegal wiretaps, lies spread to get us into Iraq, Katrina, the politically stacked Justice Dept., etc. etc. He's OK with THAT government, apparently.

It's my understanding the cash-for-clunkers program was deemed a "failure" by Republicans because it was so popular it quickly ran dry of the money it was initially budgeted, requiring the House to pass additional funding. Sounds similar to the GOP's concern about a public health care option, that it would be so wildly popular it would be a disaster -- driving private insurance companies out of business.

The program has also been a success in lowering CO2 emissions, a less mentioned goal.

It's funny how GW's failures were spectacular failures, and yet Obama's failures are, well, sucesses.

Unlike the many kooks on his side, David Frum has at least thought a bit farther than the nose on his face:

What would it mean to “win” the healthcare fight?

For some, the answer is obvious: beat back the president’s proposals, defeat the House bill, stand back and wait for 1994 to repeat itself.

The problem is that if we do that… we’ll still have the present healthcare system.

Many on the right aren't viewing the current health care debate as an opportunity to fix something that is broken, but rather they're viewing it more as just another in a series of partisan opportunities to hopefully make Obama and the Dems look bad. That's it, to gain political points, period.

But as Frum says, even if his side "wins" this one, we'll still have the same broken system that needs fixing. However, by once again stalling with the needed remedies (first in 1994) means the problems will grow increasingly more massive in size, to the point where whenever we get around to addressing health care reform again, the cures could be so outlandishly expensive at that point that any constructive fix will be out of the question.

For the GOP, it's just another case of winning the battle, losing the war. Unfortunately, many Americans on their side are not thinking beyond their noses, just reacting emotionally, allowing themselves to be manipulated and used by deep-pocket corporate interests. Ultimately these citizens are fighting for that which works against their own interests (ala tax cuts for the wealthy).

And speaking of fighting, these town hall charades have devolved from shouting and screaming, to now pushing and shoving, and soon it will be serious harm or worse. You think any responsible, sane Republican will finally say enough already before the inevitable happens? Doubtful.

If there's ever the opportunity to open mouth and say something stupid (and untrue), she never passes it up.

"Not Have An Intelligent Debate"

Dick Armey's lobby group, FreedomWorks, the outfit that brought you the many tax revolt tea parties, is now spearheading harassment efforts to disrupt health care reform discussions at town hall meetings.

Apparently the last thing this lobbyist-backed group wants is for people to "have an intelligent debate" on the issue with their congressional reps. No, better to shout, scream, and disrupt -- typical gang-like intimidation tactics ala FLA 2000 when thugs stormed the recounting of votes, halting the process.

Another instance where people are being manipulated and used at the behest of corporate power and greed. And people just oblige and go along, like mindless cult followers. Incredible.

I have a feeling something very similar to this kind of bankrolling is the reason why many in Congress are opposing health care reform (i.e. could it be corporate/lobbyist $$$?):

Lawmakers who count pharmaceutical companies among their biggest contributors lead the opposition to a health care proposal that would cut costs by allowing generic drugs to compete sooner with pricey biotechnology drugs, campaign-finance records show.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, has helped lead Senate efforts to give drug companies 12 years of exclusive rights to sell biotech drugs, rather than seven as proposed by President Obama. Hatch has received nearly $1.3 million from the employees and political action committees of drug and health products companies since 1989, making the industry his largest contributor, according to data compiled by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics.

They're not interested in what's best for you, but rather what's best for them.

Battle of nonsensical and baseless ramblings: Palin vs. Limbaugh. Ding Ding.

Just when you think Republicans have hit rock bottom, they find a depth that's just a little deeper. The latest less-than-zero issue of substance: Obama's birth certificate.

John Cole sums this one up: "The reason Republicans in DC are running from some guy on the street asking them whether or not Obama is an American citizen is because they have spent the last thirty years cultivating a base of insane crazy people, and while they may escape a reporter from FDL, they can’t escape the base."

The nutzoid base make zombies look like characters in a Merchant Ivory flick.

According to Palin's logic, for new governor Sean Parnell to best serve the state of Alaska, it's about time for him to resign.

Just to chime in further regarding Kevin's post about "deliberate charlatan" George Will, when viewing this chart, it must be evident to even the most reason-challenged of Will's readership that this data set can be easily gamed to make a point. Over the last 100 years, one could've picked any high-temp year and then a few years later claimed the trend in temperature was down. Just look at 1910, a high-temp data blip, and by 1915 the temperature plummeted -- only to spike back up a few years later.

Obviously the primary line of importance is the red line, which is the 5-year moving average that takes out much of the intermittent noise and offers a truer picture of the overall trend. Focusing on the red line, does anyone see a downtrend more recently? And while the red line has dipped in the past, when you consider it's starting point in 1900 to now, the trend has been clearly in one direction: up!

But I'd also like to mention a point I believe gets lost in all of this climate change debate, a point I feel is equally important, and that is: the urgency should not strictly be about temperature. Much energy has been spent arguing about warming versus cooling, but the global warming / emissions debate is also about toxins, pollution, cancer, etc. What comes out of cars, trucks, smokestacks, etc. is not harmless steam, but rather by-product emissions that can kill over time. In this debate, CO2 gets most if not all the attention but it shouldn’t. Why is it children are advised to eat only one can of tuna fish per month, or that asthma rates have been increasing for years? CO2 is solely to blame?

Alternative energy solutions cut down on not just global warming but also pollution and resulting health maladies. Also, last time I checked there is no debate about the content of what comes out of smokestacks, tail pipes, etc.

Perhaps those framing this issue could shift the focus to emphasize that which is of much less dispute, as it would accomplish the same end-game goal.

The Party of Nix It, Not Fix It

Republicans are looking to work every angle to defeat health care reform. Their alternative? Notta, no solutions, just the status quo. Sounds about right.

I give you the lovely C Street abode, or aka Animal House.

Priceless. We endlessly debate and procrastinate regarding global warming and alternative energy, but once China (of all countries) plows forward in earnest, determined to become the dominant global player in green energy, then the U.S. cries foul!

The Anonymous Liberal has an excellent summary of the entire Sarah Palin embarrassment. And of course, there's always the now famous take-down of Palin from the right, ala Peggy Noonan.

Just remember, we always have 72-year old cancer survivor John McCain to thank for this, Mr. Country First. To think she would've been a heartbeat away from running things in the White House is a nightmare that still keeps me up some nights....

Classic. A constituent asks Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) how he can get the same health care coverage that the Senator has, understanding that it's cheaper and better. Grassley replies just go work for the government. See for yourself.

The only way we can get such terrific coverage is to work for the federal government, so says this top-ranking Republican. And yet the GOP is the party that decries big government -- but that doesn't stop Grassley from urging his constituents to join the government's payroll, effectively endorsing the idea of bigger government. Logic once again gets in the way of a Republican's point.

Another outrage is Congress has the public health care option, but they don't have to accept it. They can always refuse it and shop around for supposedly superior private health care insurance -- like the majority of us have to do.

Anyone aware of a Senator or Rep ever refusing their "public option" coverage?

We continue to learn more about the Dark Lord's patriotic decisions:

The Central Intelligence Agency withheld information about a secret counterterrorism program from Congress for eight years on direct orders from former Vice President Dick Cheney, the agency’s director, Leon E. Panetta, has told the Senate and House intelligence committees, two people with direct knowledge of the matter said Saturday.

The report that Mr. Cheney was behind the decision to conceal the still-unidentified program from Congress deepened the mystery surrounding it, suggesting that the Bush administration had put a high priority on the program and its secrecy.

Mr. Panetta, who ended the program when he first learned of its existence from subordinates on June 23, briefed the two intelligence committees about it in separate closed sessions the next day.

Efforts to reach Mr. Cheney through relatives and associates were unsuccessful.

Efforts to reach Cheney were unsuccessful, quite a shocker. When he wants to spread propaganda and lies in his defense, he's everywhere, giving speeches, blathering on TV, but when it comes to little stuff like this, he's back hiding in the cave.

I'm sure his decision to conceal this program had everything to do with putting country first -- despite the fact that the same can be said for other countries where similar orders are given and carried out (hint: those countries are not democratic).

This video clip is great. Catch the deafening silence (and isn't it so adorable of Todd to go in the weeds!).

For how long, and how many times, have we heard the right inflame about judicial activism from the bench.... Well, we just observed it from -- wait for it -- the right wing of the Supreme Court. They recently legislated new law -- exactly what they fear from liberal justices.

And let's not forget the ultimate judicial activism from the right wing Supreme Court justices, the never-to-be-used-as-precedence ruling in favor of Bush over Gore.

To be conservative or right wing is to be for hypocrisy, plain and simple. Happy 4th!

It wasn't just Bush/Cheney in on the fix, Blair was complicit.

The rightwing disinformation campaign continues in full force (see here, here, and here).

What a shocker. Saddam never had WMD, the UN inspectors were correct all along.

Yes, Sanford's press conference was a rambling mess, much of it making little if any sense whatsoever, but I'm willing to cut him some slack on this since he had nothing prepared and was just shooting from the hip (heart).

That's not to say I feel pity for him. If he were not like so many other Republicans we've witnessed over the years who strongly condemned Bill Clinton for his behavior only to then see these same characters commit the exact same sin(s), then I would feel somewhat badly for his circumstances. However, Sanford was one of the more vocal advocates for impeaching Clinton. He was, and remained, one of the many holier-than-thou Republicans who tossed rocks in glass houses.

But the hypocrisy doesn't just stop with adultery. Sanford said the following in his press conference:

I am here because if you were to look at God's laws, there are in every instance designed to protect people from themselves. I think that that is the bottom line with God's law -- that it's not a moral, rigid list of dos and don'ts just for the heck of dos and don'ts. It is indeed to protect us from ourselves.

Sanford makes the case that man is inherently evil or has a very dark side that God's law is supposed to protect him from. It's as if man is capable of doing many bad things, all the time, and if it weren't for God we'd be a nation of 24/7 sinners.

What a lovely view of life and mankind! That if it weren't for God we'd be a bunch of ravaging savages, committing unspeakable atrocities and spreading chaos. Is this what the religious right truly believes?

Oh, and if it's true what Sanford portrays about man, the need for him to be protected from himself, than doesn't that argue for regulation in our capitalist society? If we are inherently capable of wrong doing, and many in the country are not aware of "God's law," then one would think regulations should be in place to serve as a check against man and his dark side. Heck, even guys like Sanford (and Ensign) -- who presumably know God's law -- were not able to resist giving in to their evil or dark side.

I wish one of the reporters at his press conference posed these questions to him.... Again, the hypocrisy and inconsistent logic runs well beyond anything sexual in nature.

Another "family values" Republican hypocrite...

Ensign last week, Sanford today. Both were not shy about playing up their Christian values (to curry votes?). The marital cheating is their business, it's the hypocrisy that should outrage everyone.

But then again, it's Bill Clinton's fault, right? He ruined the moral fiber of this country, gosh darn it!

I wonder which Republican will be making an awkward confession next week? In the meantime, Sanford apparently was an up-and-comer for 2012 -- poor GOP, back to having Palin as their rock star.

Distortion Machine in Overdrive

We can argue about just how many Muslims reside in the U.S. No one seems to know for certain what is the right number. But regarding this video clip, it's not the point. In an attempt to bridge global relations and repair the damage GW inflicted for many years, Obama points out in an interview that if you considered all of the Muslims living in America, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries on the planet.

Cut to Sean Hannity who claims Obama categorically stated that the United States was a Muslim nation. It's a completely false allegation.

Watch the video. Any person with an IQ greater than a birch tree will realize that Hannity is flat-out lying.

The depth of their desperation equates to the severity of their troubles. The right-wing kooks are really feeling the pressure, almost to the point where I feel pity for them (but don't).

The Not-So-Great Entertainers

Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly and the rest of the yammering clowns say they’re entertainers. The quotes are out there. It's no shocker to us, we’ve always known that sad fact. The problem has always been that their fans either don’t acknowledge this fact or don’t care. Instead, they continue to tune in with baited eyes and ears, believing the many lies and distortions.

Here's an idea, the next time these charlatans criticize a celebrity/entertainer for having and conveying a political point of view, let’s be certain to remind them of their self-proclaimed entertainer status. Last time I checked, these fellas were pontificating quite often about all things political.

Just more of that hypocrisy we've come to expect....

The $2 Trillion Swing

When Bill Clinton exited office, he left behind a hefty $850 billion budget surplus. Enter GW and a GOP-controlled Congress and it didn't take long for that surplus to vanish.

The deficit is now projected to be $1.2 trillion and this chart breaks down how much of that shortfall is on Obama's head, versus GW.

Of the $2 trillion swing in good fortune, it appears to me that Obama is responsible for just about $200 billion, or 10%. Remember that figure the next time you hear a Republican bemoaning spending and deficits.

Lawrence O' Donnell sums things up nicely.

These are the kind of court jester, clown voices that are left in the atmosphere, in the aftermath of the Bush presidency...
<..>
The mistake a party makes, or a partisan can make, is jumping up and down about everything.

So true. Many Dems voted against Roberts and/or Alito and yet you heard none of the hysterics that you're hearing now from the GOP and the screeching wingnuts re Sotomayor. I believe it says more about the voters (and listeners) of the other side than anything else, the fact that they react emotionally much more so than with a level head demanding facts.

Rush, Hannity, Beck and the rest of the clown-like entertainers all know this full well, sadly.

Those Republicans still proud of their RNC please say "I"...?

Last we heard the RNC wanted to rename the Democratic Party the "Democrat Socialist Party" (but after getting much-deserved grief over, by no less than Fox News' Cavuto, the RNC abandoned the idea). Now we see they've turned their attention to Nancy Pelosi, stoking the sexism angle, comparing her to Hollywood starlets and in particular a James Bond girl, Pussy Galore from the movie Goldfinger.

Never mind that regardless of who's telling the truth, Pelosi or the CIA, the fact remains she had no authority over actually authorizing the torture, the illegal acts, the war crimes, to begin with. That fell with, remained with the administration in charge.

Don't you just love the way the RNC will wag that dog, shift the focus, "hey, look over here -- no, not there, here!" Anything to get the attention off the so many wrongs committed by there side.

But to sink beyond zero, Pussy Galore, "botox withdrawal" (from a former Oxy abuser, no less)... Just when you thought they've bottomed out, they go one level lower.

"Cheney's public relations tour sparks criticism"

No surprises here. Apart from the fact he's out there flailing about in hopes of winning over at least some public opinion, but more so some possible future jurists, what we're seeing now is what we've known all along: who was really running the country from 2001-2008? Me thinks not Junior. You have Cheney now attempting to protect and defend his legacy (ass?), not necessarily their legacy.

That said the Dark Lord remains one scary psychopath.

More proof that financial companies own Congress and that the affluent in this country continue to benefit from legislation versus average Americans:

During negotiations last week over the contentious loan-modification amendment, banks did win some concessions from Democratic lawmakers.

“We gave [the banks] extraordinary leeway in terms of deciding whether a person could raise this in bankruptcy court,” says Senate majority whip Richard Durbin (D) of Illinois, who led the negotiations.

These included requiring that homeowners try to renegotiate terms with the bank at least 45 days in advance of seeking relief in the courts, limiting the kinds of mortgages to be covered by bankruptcy reform, and precluding homeowners from going forward in bankruptcy if the mortgage lender made a good-faith offer of renegotiation.

In the end, though, the sweeteners were not enough to win the industry’s support for the amendment. “We added all these things at the request of the banking institutions, and they said: ‘Fine, we leave. We’re not part of this.’ They walked away,” Senator Durbin says.

Courts are already allowed to write down the terms of loans on secondary homes, yachts, and other big-ticket items involved in bankruptcy proceedings, but not on an individual’s primary residence.

The failed amendment would have given judges in bankruptcy proceedings the power to have loan terms on a primary residence renegotiated so that the owner facing foreclosure could remain in his/her home. The kicker is this provision is already law for those who own a second home, a boat, and other "big-ticket items."

In other words, the wealthy are able to renegotiate better terms on their prized possessions, albeit as unnecessary as they may be, and yet less-wealthy Americans are not extended the same right when it comes to their primary residence!

Have to love the fairness. Incredible.

It seems the RNC believes Republicans have been too nice to Obama and now it's time to toss the gloves and fight bare-knuckled. More proof that they're living in some kind of detached, parallel universe.

Given the latest polls, like the one below, they have quite the uphill battle on this front:

I can't vouch for the veracity, but South Korea's newspaper is claiming a swine flu vaccine has been developed.

Let's review: the conventional techniques of persuasion applied by the FBI produced actionable (good) intel, but when the CIA stepped in and applied harsh (illegal) techniques (torture) the suspect refused to offer any intel (he shut down).

As for whether or not torture works, it's not the point. It's illegal, period. It's a crime. If you don't like that fact, then change the law. Until that happens, torture is illegal and to give orders for it to happen is to break the law.

What was it the Republicans used to say over and over, something like "the rule of law"...? Yeah, right.

If true, very scary:

As the news is constantly telling us, Pakistan is undergoing a fight for its survival as a secular state. We are skeptical about these reports, for according to our sources much of Pakistan is already under the control of the Taliban, and in most of the rest of Pakistan, the Taliban has an important presence.
<..>
In our opinion, Pakistan has already fallen under the influence of non-productive influences, and the U.S. is once again paying the price for supporting regimes who have no interest in bettering the quality of live of the local people. In our opinion, the U.S. and its allies should focus much more attention on India to stabilize the South Asian and eastern Mid East regions.

From a fairly well-respected investment management firm. Nuclear Pakistan is already lost to the Taliban? To the point where we should just focus on currying favor with and supporting its neighbor, India?? I hope not true, or that there's still time left to reverse the course of events in Pakistan, but this investment firm has been correct on several things in the past (disclosure: I have no connection whatsoever to the firm)....

And as for the relative value of geopolitical insights or info coming from investment-type firms, don't sell it short (so to speak). Often times, these firms have as clients or speak with some of the most connected, informative, and influential people in the world, or at least those who know those types of people, so very frequently the info is far better than you might first assume. But again, let's hope in this case it's wrong.

From Paul Krugman today, I love this opening line:

In a way, it was easy to take stands during the Bush years: the Bushies and their allies in Congress were so determined to move the nation in the wrong direction that one could, with a clear conscience, oppose all the administration’s initiatives.

Close your eyes and throw the opposition dart, and you were bound to hit bulls-eye. Sadly we'll be paying for and trying to undo their wrongs for many, many years to come.

Some brief comments (dated, but so be it):

Regarding potential nominees to be next Supreme Court justice, Kevin Drum writes, "Nobody gets nominated anymore unless their judicial temperament is fully and unequivocally cast in stone. The market for moderates and interesting thinkers is pretty much gone." Agreed, the pool of "interesting thinkers" has become quite shallow, but as for "moderates" I'm not sure what Kevin is getting at. It would seem to me that the only hope for passage in this day and age is if the nominee were a moderate. To be perceived as too far to the right or left is to be deemed no-shot from the get-go.

Condi Rice's recent "And by the way..." response to torture sounds like a panic move regarding any future investigatory proceedings that may occur on this front. She was basically exclaiming in no uncertain terms, "IT WASN'T ME! I WAS JUST FOLLOWING ORDERS! IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING EVERYTHING WAS LEGAL!!" Me thinks she doth protest too much...

We find out Miss California opposes gay marriage AND she got a boob job. So let me understand, I assume she believes that God is against gay marriage, and if the case then shouldn't her body -- made by God -- be good enough and beautiful enough as is and not require augmentation? Or does she feel God's work required improvement, that it wasn't quite perfect...?

I apologize for the much less frequent updating of this blog, but I guess it goes with territory. I started writing here in early 2004 mainly because I needed an outlet to remain sane. I didn't care if I had 10 readers or 10,000, I just wanted to get off my chest and out of my head the many critical things that needed to be said about the worst presidency this country has ever had to withstand. If not for anything else, the blog was a catharsis, a mind purge that allowed me to decompress. That's not to say that I didn't wish to communicate my thoughts and hopefully connect with and/or influence a few people out there, but it just wasn't my primary goal.

That said with Obama now in office, I can breath much easier and frankly there's less to get angry about. Yes, the GOP is crazier than ever, which is really something to behold since most of us thought they were off-their-rocker nuts just a year or two ago. But given the extent of their devolution into obsolescence, it's become much less worthwhile or even necessary to write about their latest outrageous statement or beyond-the-pale media stunt.

In effect, the entire Republican party has become like Ann Coulter, with most respectable progressive blogs never mentioning her because she's simply not credible and is just a laughable cartoon character, undeserving of an entry 99% of the time. And given this sad fact that the other major political party in the country has marginalized itself to the point of being equivalent to Coulter or Malkin or Beck, that all the more explains my relative radio silence here.

I will try to pick up the pace regarding updates, but based on what I described above it's just not worth the bother.

Quote of the year, from of all people, Bernard Goldberg, telling Sean Hannity enough is enough with criticism of Obama:

"I'm sorry, Sean....but we have to stop going out of our way to find fault with every single thing he does.... If something bad happened here, and thank God it didn't, but if something bad happened here, I guarantee you, I'll tell you who would have been leading the crusade against him: you."

Hannity was looking to find fault with the way Obama handled the pirate/hostage situation.

These far-right talking heads have become laughing-stock buffoons, even more so than they've ever been. Since nothing seems to stick with regards to smears against Obama, it's been an exercise in continuously raising the bar of mud-slinging, propagandizing, and just sheer over-the-top behavior (see Glenn Beck). When and how will it end? Will their tea-bagging day become their jump-the-shark moment?

Until then, it's quite sad to watch the escalation of idiocy.

As for Kevin's question concerning Norm Coleman, I'm sticking with my original premise. I wouldn't be surprised if Coleman files for appeal around Memorial Day....

Just loving the latest Letterman interview with Bill O'Reilly, a riot.

Dave starts off fairly early by delivering the money quote, telling Bill "I think of you as a goon." Dave refers to a picture of a young Bill and is concerned because Dave has a young son and some day his boy may grow up to likewise become a goon. The crowd roars with laughter....

Bill makes the claim that it wasn't Rush Limbaugh's big mouth, or RNC head Michael Steele, or the millions of fearful Dittoheads that hurled Rush into the limelight regarding the Republican Party. No, Bill claims it was James Carville's doing... Ah, yeah, OK.

I love the way Bill claims to be the luckiest guy in the world now that he's out of talk radio. Easy to believe that a guy who sells his fans coffee mugs, golf balls, and "No Pinheads" doormats would supposedly walk away from talk radio $$$.... OK, right.... I imagine it had zilch to do with ratings problems....

Another fave money quote, Bill says "I don't check in with the Republican Party very often." Seriously, he said this....

Bill asks Dave, why "cheap shot" Rush? Are you kidding me? Limbaugh, The Master of the Cheap Shot? But more so, it's choice to hear Bill plead with Dave to ease up on poor, undeserving Rush -- this coming from a guy who sends his attack-dog producers to hound people at their homes....

Bill considers Rush and Glenn Beck as "entertainers" and yet considers himself to be a "journalist," providing hard-hitting news and facts.... You can't make this stuff up....

Finally, speaking of making stuff up, Dave point-blank asks Bill what is the percentage that you just make up, and Bill immediately responds to Dave in a serious fashion! He doesn't laugh or snicker, or even just ignore the question, which would at least then provide the appearance that he was in on the joke. No, dopey Bill barks back at Dave that gosh darn it he makes nothing up, he has a top-notch research department, blah blah blah.

You can just see that Dave is having so much fun taking shots at the "goon" and yet it's just too easy. Bill is a clueless straight man and yet no good comic likes to capitalize on punch lines that are coming way too easily. As bad as Dave makes Bill look, make no mistake, it could have been much worse.