Little Ricky The Elephant Poops On McCain

It’s that every other Thursday, and we’re talking about the Philadelphia Inquirer of course, so we know the drill, don’t we?

OK, then, let’s get started (from here – Senator Man-On-Dog attended the Council for National Policy freeper circle jerk where McCain showed up to try and placate these self-serving hypocrites*)…

(*-sorry if I’m more strident than usual…OK, I’m not, really…but as far as I’m concerned, these noxious charlatans should have no voice in our national discourse since they proved long ago that they don’t have anything intelligent to say.)

OK, Little Ricky, you have the floor…

McCain has opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment in the past because he said states could handle the assault on marriage. Have they? No. Although some state courts have sided with the voters' wishes in their states, courts in other states have forced same-sex marriage and civil-union laws on the public.

Notwithstanding the typical bilious propaganda in that passage (“assault on marriage”??), I thought this was some interesting information on what is basically a campaign by the Republican Party to discriminate primarily against gays and same-sex marriage (full disclosure: I don’t support same-sex marriage either, but I support all full legal rights for LGBT individuals aside from that, and I won't work against gays who advocate for it.)

The FindLaw information tells us that the Republicans originally tried to pass the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, but Trent Lott (of all people) believed that the Act violated the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution, so instead, those opposed to gay marriage worked to have it banned in 37 states while it was passed in Massachusetts (Dubya, when campaigning in 2000, sought to leave it up to the states also).

However, when you fast forward to 2004, you found “the party of states rights” sought to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution in 2004 (as in ’96 with the DOMA, both were pushed for passage shortly before the election), but it failed in the Senate (yes – so glad the Repug 108th Congress felt that they needed to pass a bill to tell me what constitutes such a union).

And Santorum tells us the following concerning McCain and the climate crisis…

If the science is changing, so are temperatures. Yes, 1998 was the warmest year since 1938, but every year since has been cooler, and we just learned that 2007 was the coldest year since 1966.

Let's put these inconvenient truths aside and assume man-made global warming exists. The fact is, McCain's legislation would cost hundreds of billions and have almost no effect on global temperature.

How magnanimous of Little Ricky to concede the obvious (I wish I had a nickel for every post and letter to a newspaper I’ve written on global warming…and I caught his idiotic snark towards the Al Gore movie as you did also I’m sure).

However, I don’t know what legislation in particular Little Ricky is referring to here, but this article in The Nation tells us the following about how “green” McCain really is…

• He voted against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and has sponsored or cosponsored the occasional, modest environmental protection bill (protecting whales; awarding tax credits for energy efficiency; boosting fuel efficiency). (Note, however, that his lifetime rating from LCV is a measly 29%.)

• In 2003, he and Sen. Joe Lieberman introduced the first-ever climate bill to the Senate: the Climate Stewardship Act, which would establish a carbon cap-and-trade system to reduce US emissions. It was introduced and voted down in 2003 and again in 2005.

• He acknowledges, without hedging, that anthropogenic climate change is real, and speaks eloquently about the need to address it. He has frequently criticized the Bush administration for inaction.

Fair enough. But…

• On June 21, 2007, the Senate voted on the Baucus amendment to the energy bill, which would have removed some oil company subsidies in order to fund renewable energy. The amendment failed to pass. Where was McCain? He didn't vote.

• On the same day, the Senate held a cloture vote to overcome the standard Republican veto threat and pass the energy bill. The vote succeeded. Where was McCain? He didn't vote.

• On Dec. 7, the Senate held another cloture vote to overcome the standard Republican veto threat on the energy bill, which had become substantially bolder after being aligned with the House version. The vote failed. Where was McCain? He didn't vote.

• On Dec. 13, 2007, the Senate held another cloture vote to overcome the standard Republican veto threat and pass the energy bill, which had the Renewable Portfolio Standard stripped out of it but retained a measure that would shift oil company subsidies to renewables. The vote failed -- by one vote, 59-40. Where was McCain? He didn't vote -- the only Senator not to do so.

• On Feb. 6, 2008, the Senate held another cloture vote to overcome the standard Republican veto threat and pass a stimulus bill containing a number of green energy incentives. The cloture motion failed, by one vote. Where was McCain? He didn't vote -- again, the only Senator not to do so.

And you didn’t honestly think the intrepid Inky propagandist was going to give McCain a pass on stem cell research, did you…

New science also has upended the debate over federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research. It is now clear that the pursuit of federal funds for embryonic stem-cell research is not only unnecessary, but with the advent of embryonic-like adult stem cells, it is now counterproductive, since it would displace money for more promising research.

I’ll tell you what; feel free to read about the differences between adult and embryonic stem cells from this link and tell me if you agree with “Dr.” Santorum and his prognosis. To me (admittedly, a layman), it sounds like much more study is needed before embryonic stem cells can be dismissed for the purposes of research as “unnecessary” and “counterproductive.”

And finally…

Conservatives are not asking him to execute a series of 180s. We're looking for policy adjustments that show he has the independent spirit and pragmatic sense to change prior stands not simply because of new political realities, but new facts. Facts - which, as Ronald Reagan used to say, are also stubborn things.

I don’t know if Reagan ever said that or not, but I can tell you that the author of that quote is John Adams, the second president of the United States (as noted here…God, Little Ricky is such a toad). And by the way, please allow me this opportunity to plug the upcoming HBO miniseries on Adams based on David McCullough’s book here; if you have that cable channel, I’d highly recommend watching it.

So it sounds like our former Senator doesn’t intend to go out of his way to do anything but vote for McCain in the general election. And that’s fine, especially since I found this survey echoing information I’ve found elsewhere showing (as of now) Barack Obama defeating John McCain head to head in the general election (though we can’t assume anything of course). As you can see, it shows Obama with 280 electoral votes, which is enough to win given that fact that 270 are required to secure the presidency.

And facts, as Little Ricky will certainly tell us, are stubborn things.

Update 4/23/08: Of course "no one could have predicted" this, right? Not much.

More Thursday FISA Follies

This from Bloomberg News via the Philadelphia Inquirer today…

WASHINGTON - House Democrats stuck by their refusal to end lawsuits against telecommunications companies for cooperating in the Bush administration's surveillance of terror suspects without court warrants.

Atrios is so right…zombie lies never die.

That is hardly the reason for the lawsuits. Check out this Daily Kos link once more to a post about journalist Peter Y. Sussman, who tells us…

I am a plaintiff in one of two lawsuits brought by the American Civil Liberties Union against phone companies – in my case, AT&T – for illegally sharing private customer calling records with the federal government. My co-plaintiffs include other journalists and attorneys, psychiatrists, doctors, ministers and a former Republican member of Congress.

…

I and my fellow plaintiffs don't stand to win any money through our lawsuit, much less billions of dollars, but we do hope to assure governmental accountability, to open to public scrutiny the actions of corporations and government that have teamed up to deny citizens the rights guaranteed by law....

And I’ll ask once more; if the telcos didn’t do anything wrong, why do they need amnesty?

Update 3/14/08: georgia10 is spot-on as usual here.

Wednesday Stuff

Just because the U.S. House did something really great today on FISA, don't think we're out of the woods, not by a longshot - are you reading this by some chance, Sen. Jay Rockefeller and the "Bush Dogs" (excluding Patrick Murphy)? Then watch this...



...and K.O. gives the Hillary Clinton campaign a reality check; obvious how pained he is to say this stuff, but it is sadly necessary.

It Will Get Uglier Still

When I see the byline for Matt Stearns in a McClatchy story, I know I can expect a commercial of one type or another for the Republican Party, and he doesn’t disappoint here today.

And in the process, he quotes the following from conservative talk show host (and son of The Sainted Ronnie R) Michael Reagan…

…(Reagan) opposes Obama's liberal policies but despises the fact that some of his callers refer to Obama by his middle name.

"I truly believe when someone uses Barack Hussein Obama, that's their way of saying 'nigger.' That's their way of saying the N word, and it's copping out. ...

Well, there it is at last, ladies and gentlemen. In true “concern troll” fashion, as he tells us that he really means to vilify callers referring to Obama using uncomplimentary language, Reagan gives us the worst G-rated word imaginable to describe an African American.

“Copping out,” indeed....

But in a twisted way, I think we owe Reagan a debt of gratitude. He once more has demonstrated the power of hate and prejudice in our politics.

That, more than anything else, dictates how we vote (and never forget heaping doses of lizard-brained fear to go along with it).

And this is a lesson that I believe Gerri Ferraro learned long ago, and it also tells me that, given her departure from the Clinton campaign today at long last, she now has a bright future ahead of her in talk radio.

Pointing Fingers From The Sidelines Again

(And, gosh, that strategy has worked so well for Bushco in the past, hasn’t it…).

I’m still not done with the Philadelphia Inquirer; this column from Claudia Rosett of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies appeared on Monday. In it, she decries what is being called “Durban II” due to take place next year, which is a follow up to the 2001 World Conference on Racism held in Durban, South Africa.

As Rosett tells us…

So far, Durban II is shaping up to be at least as vile as Durban I, and possibly worse. The U.N. has come up with a 20-member executive planning committee chaired by Libya, has Cuba as its rapporteur, and includes such bastions of official intolerance as Russia, Pakistan and Iran (which, along with its record of supporting terrorism, threatening the existence of Israel, and hosting one of the preparatory meetings for Durban I, has experience organizing such hate-fests as its 2006 Holocaust cartoon contest).

So nasty are the portents that Canada recently did the right thing and took the lead in announcing that rather than lend any legitimacy to this outrage by taking part, the Canadian government would boycott Durban II.

(And by the way, please allow me to ask again why we extended diplomatic relations to Libya if we were only going to continue vilifying them. I never quite understood that.)

In response to the boycott by Canada and Israel, as noted here…

The "Durban 2" anti-racism conference can still be salvaged, despite recent decisions by Israel and Canada to boycott the gathering, according to David Harris, the executive director of the American Jewish Committee (AJC).

Visiting Israel as part of his organization's Board Of Governors' mission, Harris told Haaretz that "we can't afford to declare 'Durban 2' lost without more focus on diplomacy, especially toward the European Union countries and others influenced by them."

...

The fact that the conference is to be organized by the UN Human Rights Council, chaired by Libya, with Cuba as vice-chair, and that its two preparatory meetings are scheduled for Pesach and Yom Kippur, gave little reassurance that the next conference, whose venue has yet to be decided, will be any different from 2001.

This link takes you to more information on the Human Rights Council, telling you some of what they’re up to, including the following…

The Human Rights Council this morning continued its discussion with the Chair-Rapporteur of the Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances, the Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography and the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Among the issues raised during the interactive discussion with the Special Procedures were those pertaining to State complicity in addressing cases of torture, the voluntary trust fund for victims of torture, compensation to victims of torture and ill-treatment, legal frameworks for enforced disappearances, the right to truth, national efforts to combat all forms of violence against women and children, the gender perspective in combating acts of torture, rape as an act of torture and the link drawn between torture and sexual violence, the ratification of the Optional Protocol of the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, and female genital mutilation.

I’m only providing this information to let you know that real-world issues are “on the table” with these people. Whether they can reach a consensus on anything or issue formal recommendations is another story, though, I realize.

And I’m not going to defend anyone who turns a gathering of nations such as this into an excuse to bash one individual or country in particular without any opportunity to present grievances or have them addressed. However (as the post title indicates), I’m sick and tired of watching people who purport to represent us saying, “oh, we don’t like you, so we’re just not even going to pretend you exist” (something about the Obama campaign to me which is so heartening, freeper mud-slinging notwithstanding, is his notion of actually talking to people and countries first before we decide to drop bombs on them, as reasonably intelligent adults should).

And as long as I’ve mentioned one of the candidates running for president, here’s a link to a story where Hillary would "lead a boycott of the conference should current efforts to rein in the forces of hatred fail" (again, I think you sit down and try to talk first before you go storming out the door, and from Condi Rice’s response to Norm Coleman, I don’t think Bushco even cares anyway since they mercifully will be gone by the time Durban 2 takes place).

Besides, I don’t think it’s fair for anyone to say that the first Durban conference was nothing but a waste considering the timing of the conference; it was held from August 31st to September 8th (and I would say that a whole bunch of things changed three days after its conclusion).

Finally (as I always note whenever I have anything to say about a Rosett column), it should be pointed out that the author belongs to the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. For the purposes of transparency, it would be nice if the Inky told you that this group is hardly what you would call a bunch of impartial observers, but since they don’t, I’ll link to more info on them here.)

A HUD/PHA Update

I don’t have much to add to this Daily Kos post today as well as this prior post except to point out that, yes, Judge Paul S. Diamond, who ruled that HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson did not have to testify in hearings stemming from the lawsuit filed by Carl R. Greene and the Philadelphia Housing Authority as a result of Greene’s decision not to transfer a piece of city property to Jackson’s friend and music mogul Kenny Gamble…

…yes, Judge Diamond is a Bush appointee.

A "Goldberg Variation" On Freeper Propaganda

The Philadelphia Inquirer and Jonah Goldberg –perfect together (today here, rambling about patriotism and the Democratic Party)…

Sen. John Kerry, who made his name vilifying the Vietnam War, suddenly wanted credit as a patriot for the same service when he ran for president in 2004. His opening line at the Democratic convention - "I'm John Kerry, and I'm reporting for duty" - was cringe-inducing. The words came out as ironic, almost kitschy.

Uh…apparently it is necessary to remind Goldberg of the following (from here; yeah, I had the same reaction when Kerry overplayed that hand at the convention, but the reason why Kerry claimed a bit of credit as a patriot is because he is a patriot)…

Kerry joined the United States Navy Reserve during his senior year at Yale. He is quoted as saying that he decided to join the Navy after he approached his draft board for permission to study for a year in Paris, and the draft board refused.[11] In addition, several of his classmates were enlisting in the armed services. Upon graduation from Yale, Kerry entered active duty and served until 1970, eventually reaching the rank of Lieutenant. Kerry was awarded several medals during his second tour of Vietnam, including the Silver Star, Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts.

Back to Goldberg (I realize that ripping apart his literary dross is tantamount to the urge you feel to punch the Everlast speed bag as you pass by it in the gym)...

When Democrats do speak of patriotism, it is usually as a means of finding fault with Republicans, corporations or America itself. Hence the irony that questioning the patriotism of liberals is a grievous sin, but doing likewise to conservatives is fine.

I’m not going to address the inanity of that comment directly because I don’t think it deserves a serious response; I cannot recall ever questioning someone’s patriotism of either major political stripe unless it involved victimizing others for personal gain, such as cheerleading for others to fight in a war that that person would not fight in himself (right, Jonah?).

Instead, I’d like to give you the words of a prominent Democrat on the subject of patriotism, and that would be actor Sean Penn here (regarding his full-page ad in the New York Times opposing the Iraq war on May 30, 2003)…

One of the central issues Penn touches on is American patriotism. He returns to this theme several times, musing that the US flag reflects “sacrifice and heroism” and adding, “I am an American and I fear that I, and our people are on the verge of losing our flag.” The thought of the flag reminds him of the funeral of his father—blacklisted director Leo Penn, a veteran of World War II—in 1998, during which a military honor guard presented his mother with a folded American flag.

He writes: “Yet, now here we are, just those five short years have passed, and that same flag that took me so long to love, respect, and protect, threatens to become a haunting banner of murder, greed, and treason against our principles, honored history, Constitution, and our own mothers and fathers. To become a vulgar billboard, advertising our disloyalty to ourselves and our allies.”

And as noted here by Daily Kos diarist The Cunctator, Goldberg is actually working from a template created by former Nixon veep Spiro Agnew in 1970 when he was campaigning for (wait for it…) Poppy Bush himself when he ran for the U.S. Senate against Lloyd Bentsen. Here is what Agnew said…

I am not questioning his patriotism, I'm questioning his judgment.

As Cunctator notes, this is a linguistic trick to mean that the speaker is, in actuality, criticizing both the patriotism and judgment of the subject. And as you can see from the post (another example of that fabled Repug “message discipline”), this maneuver has been employed by the wingers and their acolytes pretty thoroughly since (including one-time Kerry defender Crazy Zell Miller before he turned on him, Dick Cheney, Henry Hyde, “The Gipper” himself of course, and even some other Dems on occasion besides Miller, believe it or not; maybe they forgot how the line originated).

In my experience, though, I can only remember Repugs questioning the patriotism of Democrats, primarily those who have served in the military (this tells us of Flush Limbore’s attack on Paul Hackett, an Iraq War veteran from Ohio who ran for Congress, as well as Young Philadelphia Republican Kevin Kelly’s cowardly accusations against Patrick Murphy; also noted are similar charges against former U.S. Senator and Air Force veteran Tom Daschle, and perhaps the most infamous of all by Saxby Chambliss against former U.S. Senator and decorated Vietnam War veteran Max Cleland).

So Goldberg is really employing nothing new here in his accusations (without proof, of course...well, slightly new anyway) of Democrats accusing Republicans of being unpatriotic, while there is abundant evidence of the opposite taking place for longer than many people can remember.

Oh, and one more thing about Goldberg; aside from being a literary hack, he also has no qualms about welching on a bet (he never paid up here).

“Snitchens” And Funny Money On Iraq

I got a whole lotta stupid to get to today, so I might as well begin with this.

In the Washington Post yesterday, Christopher Hitchens attempted to refute former Chief Economist of the World Bank Joseph Stiglitz on the latter’s calculation of the cost of the Iraq war.

I’m not going to bother to comment on Hitchens and his long-since-discredited, neocon-authored notions used in an attempt to rationalize this tragic military escapade since others better than I have refuted him on this already (all disguised not so cleverly in Hitchens’ typically windy suppositions and rambling, tiresome prose – maybe “pot, meet kettle” for yours truly on that, but there you are). However, this sentence stood out for me…

If you think I am being unkind or frivolous (in responding to Stiglitz and co-author Linda J. Bilmes), see if you can detect the thread of reasoning that connects Iraq expenditures with the crisis in the mortgage system.

All right, smart guy, I will; check this out…

The spending on Iraq was a hidden cause of the current credit crunch because the US central bank responded to the massive financial drain of the war by flooding the American economy with cheap credit.

"The regulators were looking the other way and money was being lent to anybody this side of a life-support system," (Stiglitz) said.

That led to a housing bubble and a consumption boom, and the fallout was plunging the US economy into recession and saddling the next US president with the biggest budget deficit in history, he said.

And speaking of spending on Iraq, this recent post from georgia10 at The Daily Kos is a must-read (I hesitate to say that, but it’s really true in this case).

Go ahead and keep flailing away at the world with tales of Iraq sanctions that supposedly cost more than the war, the dangers of enforcing no-fly zones and apocalyptic images of burning Kuwaiti oil fields, Hitchens. Nobody cares about this stuff anymore except you and the other lockstep moonbats who think that what is essentially a stalemate after almost five years of the Iraq occupation translates into success.

Update 3/14/08: I forgot about this "golden moment" also (h/t Atrios).

Monday Stuff

John Bird and John Fortune of the BBC provide the best explanation I've heard to date of the subprime mortgage crisis in honor of today's market rebound; this is about 8:00 of typically dry British humor until the "grabber" at the very end...



...and "The Pap Attack" has some good words for the evangelical movement, primarily people like Rick Warren who are trying to rescue it from the GOP bottom-feeders who have nearly ruined it...



...forgot these: K.O. brings us more-on :-) "Falafel Boy" and Glenn Beck (he needs a nick name, something preferably fit for mixed company)...



...and by the way, this is a documentary (h/t The Daily Kos).

Make The Duck Riders "Quack Up"

This is a Philly thing and it doesn't have anything to do with politics, but I promised Walt Sherman I'd give him a plug, so here it is.

The date is April 4th at 10 AM where Race Street meets the water - come one, come all!

Polishing The Windows Of Our Glass House

This CNN story tells us that…

China, host of the summer Olympics, is an authoritarian nation that denies its people basic human rights and freedoms, harasses journalists and foreign aid workers and tortures prisoners, the United States charged Tuesday.

And in other late-breaking news, water is wet; more on this story as it develops…

"The year 2007 saw increased efforts to control and censor the Internet, and the government tightened restrictions on freedom of speech and the domestic press," the report says of China. "The government continued to monitor, harass, detain, arrest, and imprison journalists, Internet writers, and bloggers."

The country-by-country report is compiled separately from U.S. diplomatic efforts, and presented to Congress. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was releasing it at the State Department.

And to show that this country is “a model of good behavior” in this regard, please consider the following (from here)…

The power to label individuals as “enemy combatants”—and detain them indefinitely—presents one of the most basic threats not only to elemental human liberties, but also to the democratic order. Why? Because a government that can simply banish its foes—and those it erroneously seizes—from public sight simply by labeling them as beyond the pale is not a government that labors under the rule of law.

Also, our government would never perform data mining and conduct surveillance on us with virtually no accountability or try to control the news reported to us on TV (notwithstanding Fox, which is a whole other issue).

But Condi Rice feels somehow that this is an appropriate time to send a message of sorts to our “partner.” Fair enough.

Just remember, though, that as the saying goes, “if China sneezes, we get pneumonia.”

A Note To Dr. Paul

I’m breaking one of my rules by posting this murderer’s mug atop this post, but I believe I have to.

You see, Ron Paul, no doubt nursing some illusions of glory within the long-since-bought-and-paid-for-by-the-corporatist-class-and-reactionary-wingnuts Republican Party, believes he can effect change as part of his “revolution” by helping to write his party’s platform in time for the convention in St. Paul, Minnesota this September.

I hope you’ll forgive me if I’m not overcome with rapturous joy at this moment.

That’s fine, though; if he believes he will be heard by his party if he does this, more power to him. Then again, maybe I will ingest that Mocha Latte Grand from Starbucks one day that will cause multiple synapses to fire off within my brain and allow me through a miracle of mental cognition to realize the plan that brings peace to Israel and Palestine once and for all, returns oil to the once-staggering price of $62 a barrel within a year, and finds a destitute child in sub-Saharan Africa who will refuse to be adopted by actress Angelina Jolie.

The problem for real, though, appears below…

Paul pointed out that McCain is anathema to pretty much everything Paul has been fighting for the past 30 years and he probably won't throw his support behind McCain, even at the Republican National Convention in September.

"Unity might be secondary to principle," he said.

Nor does it mean that Paul is going to endorse a Democrat. He pointed out that Sen. Obama, one of the Democrats still in contention for the nomination, says he wants to pull out of Iraq, but continues to vote to fund the war and wants to send more troops into Afghanistan, where the Taliban has seen a resurgence.

"His rhetoric is playing to the people that come my way, but he is every bit as much of an interventionist. He wants to send more troops into Afghanistan. He wants to broaden the military. I think it’s a fraud when he talks about how he wants to really get out of Iraq, but I think that's politics," Paul said.

Yep, Dr. Paul, it sure is “politics” all right when your party continues to obstruct on any attempt whatsoever by Congress to tie funding of the Iraq war to troop withdrawals, to say nothing of the head of your party, George W. Milhous Bush, who would veto any bill mandating that anyway.

And given that obstruction, we have scenarios such as this where Senate Democrats must vote for war funding on construction projects and necessities for our troops despite their professed objections to the war (oh, sorry, I forgot – you serve in the House and really don’t have a clue as to what goes on in the Senate anyway).

And as far as Afghanistan is concerned, our troops were set up to fail because precious human and material resources were diverted to Iraq, so now we have to play catch-up so whatever gains we’ve accomplished aren’t totally negated (to say nothing of trying to get the guy in the photo after all; in a related vein, I thought this was an interesting post, though I have to admit that it prompted a bit of a "duuhhh!" reaction from yours truly).

So just keep up this contrarian act as long as you want, Dr. Paul. You have a ways to go before you grow as tiresome as Ralph Nader, though I have to admit that you’re on a path to do that.

Just remember that you will never be “the anointed one,” and remain on your best behavior later this year for your party’s TV show, full of pretend praise for diversity and tolerance of other points of view.

The stars will be John McCain and his running mate, let’s not forget. Keep a stiff upper lip and a smiling face, and maybe “Senator Honor and Virtue” will let you clean up the confetti as the parade passes you by.

Is Bush Bud Sarko Now French "Toast"?

My, how the luster has worn off French president Nicolas Sarkozy!

I mean, wasn’t it almost a year ago when conservatives in this country were engaged in all kinds of gyrations (here) over the fact that we now had a leader of that country who they liked because he supposedly was going to stand up to those nasty unions and snap his people into action (work more, play less, get the guys to start watching “he man” stuff like the WWF and indoor monster truck rallies instead of sitting around by the Seine moping while eating brie and drinking mineral water and listening to Edith Piaf…or something)?

Gosh, whatever could have gone so wrong? Well, as noted here…

According to a CSA poll published Sunday, only 48 percent of the French trust the president to run the country - a fall of seven points in a month. Since last July, his approval rating has plunged by 17 percentage points.

"President Sarkozy is exposing his flamboyant personal life at the moment the French want him to deliver on his promises to improve the economy," said Stéphane Rozès, the director of CSA, in a telephone interview. "He has eliminated the line between public and private life, between his success in his personal life and his promises for the French people to succeed."

The decline in Sarkozy's approval rating was particularly dramatic among older people; it fell 9 points among the French people from 50 to 64 and 15 points among those over 65.

Indeed, while the French faced the New Year with higher retail prices and a decline in their buying power, Sarkozy was photographed with (model Carla) Bruni touring the pyramids of Egypt and the archeological sites in Jordan. There was Bruni, a beatific look on her face as her head leaned upon the president's shoulder; there was the president grabbing her around the waist, his fingers touching her exposed midriff.

Dubbed by some commentators President Bling-Bling, the twice-divorced Sarkozy is said to have given Bruni a heart-shaped, rose-colored diamond engagement ring designed by Victoire de Castellane at Dior; she is said to have given him a Swiss-made Patek Philippe watch.

Or, in the immortal words of Max Bialystock, “if you’ve got it, flaunt it, baby!” (and by the way, Sarkozy and Bruni were subsequently wed).

And the real kicker to me, as noted here, is that sex appears to be on the rise (ahem…) within that country. And as we know, Europe in general cares less about extramarital affairs among its leaders than this country does: again, I don’t encourage that, but I think that’s an enlightened attitude (the trick, though, is to keep it to yourself, it seems).

Yep, the more I read about France and Sarko, the more I think Eliot Spitzer picked the wrong country.

The “Insult-40-States Express” Rolls On

Note: Markos Moulitsas observed that he thinks that’s the Clinton “strategy” here; owing to Mark Penn I'm sure.)

In today’s Bucks County Courier Times, the senator from New York criticizes Barack Obama (and, by extension, Patrick Murphy) on starting to end the war in Iraq here…

On Monday, Clinton’s campaign and three high-profile military officers held a conference call where they criticized Obama’s plan for Iraq. Obama’s plan was crafted with Murphy, the first and only Iraq war veteran in Congress, last year.

Lee Feinstein, the chief foreign policy adviser for Clinton’s campaign, said Obama’s war policy has been "words only," and his record in the Senate "doesn’t quite match the hype" of his calls to end the war.

In a phone interview Monday, Murphy said Obama has been very clear about his plans to end the war while Clinton has not.

"I’m disappointed that the Clinton campaign has to continue to use these misleading tactics," said Murphy, who is the Pennsylvania state chairman of Obama’s campaign. "[Obama’s] been very clear that we need a change of strategy [in Iraq and Afghanistan]."

Obama’s policy is rooted in a bill unveiled by Obama and Murphy at a Feb. 6, 2007 press conference at the U.S. Capitol. Known as the Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007, the bill was an attempt to stop President Bush’s troop escalation plan and, instead, initiate a withdrawal of all American combat brigades from Iraq by the end of this month.

Murphy’s and Obama’s bill never made it to a Senate or House vote, although similar legislation was later vetoed by President Bush. Yet the bill has become a critical issue in Obama’s presidential campaign.

Given all of this, I decided to do what our media is apparently not willing to do, and that is to go to the web sites of both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and compare their stated plans for getting our people out of Iraq.

First, I went to Obama’s site here and found out the following…

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

Then, I visited Hillary’s site here and read the following…

Starting Phased Redeployment within Hillary's First Days in Office: The most important part of Hillary's plan is the first: to end our military engagement in Iraq's civil war and immediately start bringing our troops home. As president, one of Hillary's first official actions would be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council. She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration. She would also direct the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to prepare a comprehensive plan to provide the highest quality health care and benefits to every service member -- including every member of the National Guard and Reserves -- and their families.

I should add, by the way, that both plans feature a lot of good ideas about utilizing diplomacy to involve other states in regional talks to secure Iraq’s borders, keep out neighboring countries, support reconciliation within Iraq, provide financial support for reconstruction, and address the refugee crisis which, according to Obama, affects two million people inside Iraq and two million outside the country (basically, all steps taken by adult leaders in this crisis). You could support either plan and definitely be on the right track.

However, the difference to me between the two is that Hillary would convene the players who would tell her what to do, which is fine, but Obama already knows what to do (no doubt influenced heavily by Patrick’s recommendations).

I also took note of this language in particular in Obama’s plan…

The best way to press Iraq’s leaders to take responsibility for their future is to make it clear that we are leaving.

That’s right out of the John Edwards play book, and I’m glad to see that Obama is saying the same thing.

Given all of this, I really don’t understand the petulant reaction from the Clinton people towards what Obama is proposing. Maybe they just can’t get it through their heads that, yes, he actually has some good ideas on this and other matters, and yes, those ideas deserve to be respected. And though Hillary’s White House experience carries a lot of weight (in an unofficial capacity, though, I’ll grant you), that doesn’t automatically mean that Obama could not match that were he given the opportunity.

Also, while I’m not surprised to see Joe Sestak lining up for Hillary (which is his right), this represents yet another reconciliation which will have to be achieved in the event that Obama wins the nomination (and even if Hillary does somehow, there will be a lot of residual bad feeling that will tar those associated with it from a seemingly never-ending series of statements from her supporters such as this one, and Our Gal Gerri has put her foot in it a couple of times already).

Update 3/11/08: I think this is fair, especially since Samantha Power left the Obama campaign for a lesser offense.

Update 3/12/08: Took her long enough...

And speaking of Patrick, this Guest Opinion appeared recently in the Courier Times from a lady named Margie Cantwell Colton of Churchville, PA, a social studies teacher at Richboro Middle School (I almost got to this yesterday, but the Spitzer thing took care of that)…

As a teacher of American history, it is my honor and privilege to help my students understand and appreciate the precious blessings of our American democracy, and the brilliance of our Constitution. Not all impulsive, fun-loving eighth graders, however, find studying the rule of law fascinating. Not all are thrilled that with freedom comes responsibility. Not all yet feel the need to clarify and cultivate values worth working and fighting for.

Good teachers are ever alert and searching for resources to excite their students about learning, to help them to connect with generations gone before and those yet to come. I believe that Patrick Murphy's book, “Taking the Hill, From Philly to Baghdad to the United States Congress,” is one of those resources.

Ever aware of my responsibility to keep my teaching free of personal political views, I can also recommend that my students read John McCain's “Faith of My Fathers,” or any of the other hundreds of worthwhile books written by our legislators — Democrats and Republicans.

Some of the most essential principles I am charged to teach are tolerance for diversity and respect for self and others, despite differences. To understand history is to recognize the needs, values and experiences that unite us rather than just the opinions that divide us. These are lessons not easily embraced by all adolescents. In my teaching years, I have been fortunate to see most of my young scholars mature into responsible, respectful, compassionate young adults — somewhere between September of eighth grade and June of 12th. For some, the process is slower than for others.

In their masked insecurity, teens are often quick to ridicule another for a mistake, a weakness, or a difference from “the crowd.” They often seek acceptance by practicing exclusion. Teachers and parents struggle daily to heal the damage done to our children and young adults by the bullying behaviors in which so many of them engage. Perhaps raising our children might be a little less difficult if our politicians and their supporters would model integrity and mutual respect, rather than rancorous, mean-spirited sabotage.

This past Presidents' Day, I was fortunate to be in attendance at the National Constitution Center for a conference and book signing by Congressman Murphy. His conversation with audience members was inspiring. The intelligence, candor, conviction, and humility with which he responded to people's questions led me to agree with Fred Allingham's Feb. 19 Guest Opinion: “Disagree with Murphy, but don't question his integrity.”

Throughout the discussion of difficult issues, Murphy created and maintained a heartening “No Friendly-Fire Zone” in the auditorium, as recommended by Allingham. The topics were tough — U.S. objectives and responsibilities in Iraq, rules of engagement, veterans' medical care and employment training, and environmental issues. The congressman addressed decisions for which he has been criticized or accused of “rookie mistakes.”

With courage he defended his early support for Barack Obama, despite his association with former President Bill Clinton and Sen. Hillary Clinton. He pledged reduction of the enormous national debt to be inherited by our children. Perhaps most reassuring were his remarks about voting with his conscience, regardless of political consequences.

In his demeanor throughout the dialogue, Murphy showed depth of character and unwavering confidence in America. He also evidenced his nonpartisan spirit in discussing productive collaborations with Republican colleagues. Murphy has learned the value of those collaborations on a very personal level. His wife and mother are both committed Republicans. I know the latter well. We spent three precious years together at Immaculata and still treasure the bonds of friendship forged in those special years. Among the 114 then-young women in our class, Margie Rapone Murphy and I were two of the four Margaret Marys.

Reading “Taking the Hill” has renewed and strengthened my confidence that the future of America is bright because of young leaders like Patrick Murphy. Appreciating the values learned from his parents and teachers, he has been galvanized by coming of age in the dangerous and complex culture of our time. I am grateful to him, and to all of the courageous warriors who serve our country — in the barracks, on the battlefield, in the chambers of Congress, or in Bucks County.

And to help Patrick, click here.

Monday Stuff

So much snark for this I know from May '07; I can't imagine how he thought he could have gotten away with it, but people in his orbit never do (say what you want about Dershowitz, but he's spot-on here)...



...and as I watch this, I continue to miss the presidential candidacy of John Edwards.

What A Damn Fool (updates)

I was in the middle of a couple of other things I was trying to develop when this blasted itself all over the place.

First and foremost, this is awful for Eliot Spitzer’s family; the innocent people who are victimized the worst deserve the most sympathy and support as far as I’m concerned. And lest anyone think I’m being soft here because of his party, I should point out that that is the case whether we’re talking about a Democrat or a Republican. Besides, we all laughed at Larry Craig in the men’s room, but I can also recall a chortle or two over Gary Hart’s escapade with Donna Rice back in the ‘80s (and the boat was named “Monkey Business”; could Hart have looked any worse in all of that?).

But politically (which, again, is of secondary importance), this is a disaster.

I don’t see how Spitzer stays on the job here; indeed, it’s being reported on at least two networks that he’s resigning (OK, so one of them is Fox).

And how much worse could it be than for “Mr. Law and Order” sent to Albany to clean things up to go down like this?

And as I ponder this, I’ve also been wondering about the information presented here.

And you’d also better believe that one of the reasons why the Repugs are “partying like its 2004” at this moment is because they’re going to inject even more ungodly amounts of cash into New York now to run ads in those media markets for McCain, particularly if Obama gets the nomination (with Clinton beating him decisively there, as you can read from the link above – John Kerry won New York by nearly a million and a half votes in the general election here in ‘04, sure, but he also won the Democratic primary in that state by a wide margin). I’d love to be wrong, but I cannot help but see now that this state is more “in play” than it should be as a result of this.

And also, get ready for the media to employ the “Clinton Rules” and resurrect every national Democratic sex scandal imaginable (I mentioned Gary Hart, but we’ll hear about McGreevey again too, as well as all of the real and alleged sins of “The Big Dog” himself).

First we have to beat back all of the pundit narrative about how it’s so bad for the Dems to have this close contest between Hillary and Obama and how it’s supposedly strengthening McCain (and by the way, Mark Udall in Colorado quoted in this story, try “growing a pair” based on your “Chicken Little” statement), and now we have this.

Thanks for nothing, Eliot (and by the way, at least you could have tried juggling multiple mistresses or something and shown some discretion, not that I encourage that sort of thing, but...).

Update 3/10/08: Jane H. at firedoglake is typically all over this like "white on rice" here, and good for her. Of course Spitzer didn't get a fair shake versus Vitter - Diaper Dave was given every opportunity to get some kind of a story ready before it "hit the fan." That's all the more reason, though, for Spitzer to know what would happen to him if he ever got nailed on something like this.

And seeking prosecution under the Mann Act is typical for a bunch of tightass Repugs. They've prosecuted a lot of other high-profile types under that stupidly Puritanistic, racist law also.

Update 3/11/08: Glenn Greenwald makes some good points here (with a link back to Jane H.), as does Susan G of The Daily Kos here, including the reader note that the identity of "Diaper Dave" was never leaked out of the DOJ, but Spitzer's identity was leaked a week after the initial arrest in the Emperor V.I.P. case (that was the name of the service Spitzer contacted).

And of course, since were talking about the "Clinton Rules" here, we're not going to know exactly what Spitzer and the other consenting adult did (we wouldn't know anyway since it may go to court, unbelievably enough), but we WILL hear about this every (drip) single (drip) day (drip) in our media.

And speaking of lag time, we heard about Spitzer a week after the initial arrest as Susan G notes, but when it came to "Senator Wide Stance" and his little frolic in the Minneapolis men's room, that took place last summer but we didn't know about it until almost the fall, and the person who broke it was the cop who ran the sting, not the DOJ.

Update 3/12/08: These numbers from kos show Obama up 14 over McCain as of now, so it's possible that my worries are unfounded. However, these will tighten up before it's all over; how much is anyone's guess (and by the way, Spitzer is officially out now.

Update 3/16/08: On a totally unrelated note, "spank my butt and call me Charlie" for Udall standing up here (h/t Daily Kos).

Update 3/17/08: More than a little food for thought here...

In The Spirit Of Bipartisanship

I don’t know how many people are aware of the fact that Sen. Barack Obama called Sen. John McCain when the latter all but won the Repug nomination for president and congratulated him. I call that damn sporting, even though I know McCain will care less about it while we’re hearing in this campaign that Obama is supposedly some kind of a demonic presence as opposed to a flesh-and-blood person from Repug-friendly hate mongers (and in a related vein, this column yesterday from Nicholas Kristof was excellent).

And as a filthy, unkempt liberal blogger, I wasn’t exactly sure what I could do to reciprocate Obama’s gesture towards the opposition, but after reading Bill Kristol’s Times column today, I think I have an idea about that.

You see, Kristol speculates on who should be the VP candidate on the Repug ticket with that “straight-talking maverick” at the top, and he posits the following…

Perhaps the most obvious way McCain could upend the normal dynamics of this year’s election would be a bold vice presidential choice. He could pick a hawkish and principled Democrat like Joe Lieberman. He could reach beyond the usual bevy of elected officials by tapping either David Petraeus or Raymond Odierno — the two generals who together, in an amazing demonstration of leadership and competence, turned the war in Iraq around last year. He could persuade the most impressive conservative in American public life, Clarence Thomas, to join the ticket. There are other unorthodox possibilities.

Yes, there are “unorthodox possibilities” such as Kristol writing a column where he actually knew what he was talking about; Lieberman is officially an independent Senator from Connecticut and not a Democrat, and calling Clarence Thomas “the most impressive conservative in American public life” is actually pretty funny when you think of what it says about other conservatives.

Well, I think I can help out the esteemed Times columnist today and offer some other potential VP choice here, and they are as follows…

Fred Thompson – Yep, I know, lazy, uninterested, but McCain can relate to him as a peer, and Thompson should be able to snap that conservative coalition into place once and for all (and he blogs too! Well, sorta…).

U.S. Rep. Jack Kingston of Georgia – Another conservative darling who spins lies against the opposition like gold, including criticizing Barack Obama for not wearing a flag lapel pin when he appeared on Dan Abrams' MSNBC program (the problem is that Kingston didn’t wear one at the time either). Also, he’s a shoo-in to get a forum on “Real Time With Bill Maher” for some reason – perhaps a selection borne of guilt Maher may feel for not enough conservative representation on his show.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia – Kristol suggested Thomas, but why settle for second banana? Love him or hate him, he knows how to work the media, and since there’s no “gray area” with this guy (kind of a concern for yours truly given that he’s a jurist), he’ll always be “good copy,” and he brings all of the personality to the ticket that McCain barely has (and so compassionate also - here too).

Oliver North – Moves easily within the media, military, and political establishments, and he raised about $20 million in direct mail solicitations in 1994 during his failed U.S. Senate run against Chuck Robb (here). Besides, this puts North “a heartbeat away” from what he’s wanted all along anyway. And do you honestly think anyone remembers Iran –Contra?*

*- sarcasm…I hope – ed.

Tucker Carlson – Hey, the guy just lost his show, and he has a built-in sympathetic audience that probably doesn’t know what to do with itself now, to say nothing of the abundance of youth he'd bring to the ticket. Besides, imagine the yuks when McCain blows a gasket and starts reaming him out, given that Carlson could probably pass for one of McCain’s grandkids.

So there you have it, and I hope my selections are beneficial somehow (also, turning about 180 degrees again as it were, here’s a post on another McCain flip flop, this one on waterboarding, and I haven’t made it completely through this article yet written by a doctor that discusses McCain’s medical history, including his bout with melanoma).

No Feith In His Copouts On Iraq

I just about became physically ill when I read this news story by Tom Ricks and Karen DeYoung of The Washington Post yesterday about the soon-to-be-released book by Douglas Feith, former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy under Rummy prior to the commencement of the Iraq War.
This approximately-900-page tome must be nothing more than a never-ending exercise in CYA revisionism and score-settling between the author and primarily the CIA and State departments under our ruling cabal.

Ricks and DeYoung tell us…

(Former Secretary of State Colin) Powell, Feith argues, allowed himself to be publicly portrayed as a dove, but while Powell "downplayed" the degree and urgency of Iraq's threat, he never expressed opposition to the invasion. (Former viceroy Paul) Bremer, meanwhile, is said to have done more harm than good in Iraq. Feith also accuses (Gen. Tommy) Franks of being uninterested in postwar planning, and writes that Condoleezza Rice, Bush's national security adviser during most of Feith's time in office, failed in her primary task of coordinating policy on the war.

He describes Bush as having wrestled seriously with difficult problems but as being ill-served by subordinates including Powell and Rice. Feith depicts former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld with almost complete admiration, questioning only his rough handling of subordinates.

Yeah, well, considering that Rummy was Feith’s boss, that not really unexpected, is it? And while Colin Powell had his own infamous role here for which he must make an accounting one day, I may someday believe this story about him, while I will never give Feith any credibility at all.

And while Bremer was the person who instituted “de-Baathification” in Iraq and disbanded the Iraqi army soon after the end of the war before the insurgency began, I can definitely believe that the orders for that came from Deadeye Dick Cheney and were channeled through Rummy and Feith; the author is even more of a weasel and a coward than I imagined for trying to “skate” on this.
And as far as Tommy Franks is concerned, Feith may be correct, though as noted here, Franks once referred to Feith as “the dumbest [expletive] guy on the planet.”

Oh, but Feith is relentless when it comes to spreading around the blame for his awful decision making. As Maureen Dowd of the Times noted here (returning to form for a change after all of her catty political nonsense, writing about a speaking gig Feith had with the AEI war heads last December)…

He noted that in battles through American history, “the military fights better over time.” This from a guy who sent our military into Iraq without the right armor, the right force numbers or the right counterinsurgency training.

“A strategic alliance of the ousted Baathists and foreign jihadists was something that our intelligence community did not anticipate,” he said, continuing to spread the blame.

But the intelligence community didn’t miss it. The neocons tried to scrub out that sort of analysis, knowing it would make the war harder to sell.

Classified reports prepared for President Bush in January 2003 by the National Intelligence Council warned that rogue elements of Saddam’s government could hook up with existing terrorist groups to wage guerrilla warfare.

And…

In “Fiasco,” Tom Ricks wrote that Feith’s Pentagon office was dubbed the “black hole” of policy by generals watching him drop the ball.

“People working for Feith complained that he would spend hours tweaking their memos, carefully mulling minor points of grammar,” Ricks wrote. “A Joint Staff officer recalled angrily that at one point troops sat on a runway for hours, waiting to leave the United States on a mission, while he quibbled about commas in the deployment order.”

Jay Garner, America’s first viceroy in Iraq, deemed him “incredibly dangerous” and said his “electrons aren’t connected.”

Feith’s disdain for diplomacy and his credo that weakness invites aggression were shaped, Ricks reported, by personal history: “Like Wolfowitz, Feith came from a family devastated by the Holocaust. His father lost both parents, three brothers, and four sisters to the Nazis.”

Feith told Jeffrey Goldberg in The New Yorker that “My family got wiped out by Hitler, and ... all this stuff about working things out — well, talking to Hitler to resolve the problem didn’t make any sense to me. The kind of people who put bumper stickers on their car that declare that ‘War is not the answer,’ are they making a serious comment? What’s the answer to Pearl Harbor? What’s the answer to the Holocaust?”

Ugh…Exhibit A for why partisans of any stripe should never hold public office.
And here are some other “golden moments” with Feith:

A meeting Pentagon analysts reporting to Feith held with arms dealer Manucher Ghorbanifar prior to the Iraq war, even though the CIA had deemed Ghorbanifar as unreliable because of his involvement with the Iran-Contra fiasco (here)

Feith’s involvement in having Tom Warrick and Meghan O’Sullivan booted off Gen. Jay Garner’s transition team that began work in Iraq after the invasion and before Bremer arrived because they committed the unpardonable sin of working for the State Department, which Feith called “The Department of Nice,” as noted here – both were formidable assets, though O’Sullivan managed to “land on her feet” later on

The characterization of Feith’s operation as “The Gestapo” by Colin Powell here (yep, it’s easy to see why a petty demagogue like Feith would think a 900-page “pity party” would be appropriate for Powell speaking the truth)

How sadly typical for a Bushco partisan to try and disgrace his peers instead of owing up to his own failings on the war (men such as Powell and Richard Armitage, I believe, feel some sense of remorse, while worthless lickspittles like Feith would be hard-pressed to communicate even the meaning of the word).

Sunday Stuff

Thanks for giving ammo to the enemy, Hil (just keep digging)...



...and speaking of "Senator Honor And Virtue," what's with defending John Kerry versus the swiftboat liars in 2004, but taking money from them when they "rebranded" this year?

Saturday Stuff

Time to introduce "John McBush," the Repug '08 presidential nominee (as someone from The Daily Kos noted, though, watch out if Deadeye Dick Cheney says he wants to head up the committee to search for a VP candidate; actually, I'd like to see that)...



...and to be fair, here's a video for Hillary (no blackface distortions or comparing her rival to Ken Starr, it should be noted - update 3/15/08: by week's end, this would truly be symbolic of HRC's campaign at this point)...



...OK, two videos for Obama coming up: the first is John Legend on "The Colbert Report" (amusing, but Legend says good stuff, I think)...



...and the other is from Oliver Willis, cutting right to the chase as far as I'm concerned.

Friday Stuff

Stephen Colbert is great, but my fear as always is that not enough people will get the joke (h/t Atrios)...



...and doing about a 180-degree turn, here's Erin Coker of Global Pulse with a report on the campaign in Russia for president recently won by Putin protégé Dmitry Medvedev; the report analyzes the links between the two, related press restrictions and the likely consolidation of political as well as economic power that will ensue. Also, chess champion Garry Kasparov is noted and his attempts to influence his country's agenda (I really haven't said anything about this and I probably should have, so here it is).

Us Versus Them (An '08 Lesson)

It seems that local radio personality Dom Giordano of radio station 1210 AM WPHT in Philadelphia is going to follow the typically bad advice of Flush Limbore and switch his party affiliation from Democratic to Republican Republican to Democratic so he can vote next month in the primary for Hillary Clinton, then presumably change his affiliation back to Republican so he can vote for "Straight Talk" McCain in the fall (noted here). And of course, he's telling his hammerheaded listeners to do the same thing.

If someone wanted to give the enema to Philadelphia's conservative body politic that it so sorely deserves, Giordano's mouth might be the place they would stick the tube.

How many levels of stupid? Well, think about the election officials hopelessly overburdened with the attendant paperwork to satisfy the whims of these troglodytes, and then think about any mixups that would occur in the general election if these Republican/Democrat/Republicans weren't re-registered in time. And think about the screaming from these characters if they weren't accommodated (it would serve them right, actually).

Also, here's something to consider.

Yes, it's true that Markos at The Daily Kos encouraged Democrats in Michigan to vote for Willard Mitt Romney in an effort to derail "Senator Honor And Virtue" as much as possible (here). However, Michigan has an open primary, so such voting was totally within the rules. Pennsylvania does not; if it did, I wouldn't care if Giordano or any of his minions chose to vote for Hillary Clinton, Ralph Nader, Bill Kristol, Dick Vitale - anybody the hell they wanted.

Besides, which political party out there is the one always screaming about voter fraud? Well, then, what do you call this?

This is a desperate act by the water carriers for a morally and intellectually bankrupt political movement, one that wrested the keys to Dad's roadster, as it were, in December 2000 and subsequently drove it right off a cliff (9//11, Iraq war, Katrina, corruption, economy in shambles - you know the sad litany as well as I do). And this November, it will finally go splat once and for all.

Where The Rubber Meets The Road (3/7/08)

As reported in last Sunday's Philadelphia Inquirer, here is how Philadelphia-area members of Congress were recorded on major roll-call votes last week.

House

Energy-tax changes. In a 236-182 vote, the House sent the Senate a bill (HR 5351) to raise taxes on the five largest oil companies by $13.6 billion over 10 years and use the revenue to fund tax breaks that would spur the development of renewable fuels and promote energy efficiencies.

A yes vote was to pass the bill.

Voting yes: Robert E. Andrews (D., N.J.), Robert A. Brady (D., Pa.), Michael N. Castle (R., Del.), Chaka Fattah (D., Pa.), Tim Holden (D., Pa.), Frank A. LoBiondo (R., N.J.), Patrick Murphy (D., Pa.), H. James Saxton (R., N.J.), Allyson Y. Schwartz (D., Pa.), Joe Sestak (D., Pa.) and and Christopher H. Smith (R., N.J.).

Voting no: Charles W. Dent (R., Pa.), Jim Gerlach (R., Pa.) and Joseph R. Pitts (R., Pa.).

In this area, all of the Dems and most of the Repugs did the right thing minus the usual characters, as you can see (including you-know-who; and speaking of which, to help Bruce Slater, click here; he has more on Pitts and this vote).

And for those of you living outside the Philly metro area who may be reading this, here is a link to the Sierra Club that I received from a friend of mine (many thanks) pertaining to a related bill that passed in December last year; you need only enter your zip code and/or state name to find out how your rep voted on this bill also (never a doubt about Patrick on this one either).

Senate

Subprime mortgage relief. In a 48-46 vote, the Senate failed to reach 60 votes needed to advance a Democratic bill (HR 3221) enabling holders of shaky subprime mortgages to rework payment terms in bankruptcy court.

A yes vote was to start debating the bill.

Voting yes: Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D., Del.), Thomas Carper (D., Del.), Bob Casey (D., Pa.), Robert Menendez (D., N.J.) and Frank Lautenberg (D., N.J.).

Voting no: Arlen Specter (R., Pa.)

So just remember how the Repugs decided to pull their obstruction act again here, all of you stuck out there with those ARMs adjusting upwards again while our inflated home equity plummets as well, even though foreclosing on a home usually costs more than restructuring the terms of a mortgage.

And as always, screw you, Arlen (who obviously didn’t read this).

Iraq pullout mandate. The Senate voted, 70-24, to advance a bill (S 2633) that would require the administration to start withdrawing most U.S. forces from Iraq within 120 days and cut off most war funding by the same deadline.

A yes vote was to advance the bill.

Voting yes: Menendez, Lautenberg and Specter.

Voting no: Carper and Casey.

Not voting: Biden.

Before I say anything about this, I should point out that I am definitely not an expert on the inner workings of the United States Congress. I’m just a Google monkey trying to make sense of our chaotic life and times. If I happen to stumble upon the nut more often than not, it is attributed more to divine providence than any expertise I may ever claim to have.

And the reason for that disclaimer is because I simply could not figure out what the hell was going on with this vote this week, but luckily I stumbled upon this individual who was equally surprised. The reason is because cloture motions on the war that have anything to do with troop withdrawal tied to funding always fail.

However, this one passed (I mean, it would get vetoed anyway by President Nutball – and by the way, did anybody besides me happen to catch that goofy dance he did while waiting for John McCain’s car to pull up to the White House yesterday? One day, one of those weasels in his administration is going to spill the beans, and when that happens, all those “values voters” out there still in the “19 Percent” crowd won’t know whether to listen to Rush Limbaugh or wind their watch.)

I think the reason Carper and Casey voted no is because they objected to the time limit and wanted to continue debate (I can’t possibly imagine any other way that Carper would do something logical concerning the war, though I think Casey would).

And I think Lautenberg, Menendez and Specter all wanted to bring it to a vote so it could go down in flames…again.

If anyone else out there has any insight into this and wants to offer an explanation, be my guest.

War-strategy shift. Voting 89-3, the Senate advanced a bill (S 2634) requiring the administration to report to Congress within 60 days on its broad strategy for confronting al-Qaeda in countries in addition to Iraq.

A yes vote was to debate the bill.

Voting yes: Biden, Carper, Casey, Menendez, Lautenberg and Specter.

Yep, I can see Dubya reaching for his veto crayon and scribbling a big X over this one too (this is the other bill besides 2633 sponsored by Russ Feingold – the three Nos were from Repugs John Barrasso and Mike Enzi of Wyoming and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, as noted here…by the way, anybody besides me notice how quiet Hagel has been on the war for a little while now? I don’t know why, with him leaving and all…).

Indian health care. Voting 83-10, the Senate passed a bill (S 1200) to renew through 2017 an array of federally funded health-care programs for American Indians and native Alaskans.

A yes vote was to pass the bill.

Voting yes: Biden, Carper, Casey, Menendez, Lautenberg and Specter.

I’m sure there’ll be more fun next week, so stay tuned.

Friday Mashup (3/7/08)

So Samantha Power of the Obama campaign has resigned after calling Hillary Clinton “a monster” (as noted here). To me, an apology would be good enough for that, but I think she deserves credit for acting so honorably.

Now in turn, the very least the Clinton campaign can do is identify the person responsible for the utterly guttural depiction of Barack Obama (above - hat tips to HuffPo and Americablog, also in the mouse-over attribution) and sending him or her packing. Purposely darkening Obama and distorting his features is, to quote a notable person, “right out of Karl Rove’s playbook.”

Update 3/8/08: Yep, this is a good idea also.

I know I’ve taken more than a few shots at lazy reporters, so I should definitely publicize those trying to do their jobs to the best of their ability, and Elisabeth Bumiller of The New York Times definitely falls into the latter category. Not only did she write this excellent column holding “Straight Talk” McCain’s feet to the fire several days ago, but she riled “Senator Honor and Virtue” here by following up in her questioning with the persistence not demonstrated by the Repug presidential nominee’s chummy pals in the press.

Memo to Times management: Bumiller deserves credit for her work, not some unceremonious burial of her reporting in the National Report just before the Op-Ed page in Section A. Would that more of her peers at the paper followed her example.

Update 3/8/08: Here's more on what Bumiler was asking about; smintheus is right - McCain is a poor liar, and that's why he has the media run interference for him.

Update 3/10/08: Ah, indeed.

So now that Ron Paul has been eliminated from the Republican presidential nomination (uh, he really isn’t going to try and stage some convention coup over delegates, is he?), I would like to ask the same question as I asked while back: what is going to happen to all of his campaign dough, and exactly how much are we talking about?

By law, he could not use it in his U.S. House congressional primary campaign against Chris Peden (not that he would have needed it anyway, since Paul beat him by a 2-1 margin), but if I’d given money to his presidential campaign, I’d want to know this (and more importantly, how much of it is going to be siphoned back into the RNC to help Saint McCain, someone who is going to hasten the Repug descent right off the cliff, as it were, and away from the direction advocated by Paul and his supporters).

Oh, and by the way Dr. Paul, class move not to call McCain and congratulate him, as noted here by Lew Rockwell; I don’t like him either, but it would have been the sporting thing to do.