Left-Over

You're Fired!

2010-07-15T11:20:00.000-07:00

Whitman's "Terminological Inexactitude"!

2010-07-15T09:11:00.000-07:00

Today Jerry Brown called Meg Whitman a liar! Well almost. His choice of words was a little more interesting, but his point is the same. Meg Whitman is a liar! Her op-ed on immigration published this week was an attempt to confuse and disguise her previous stated views on the subject. As Brown stated - she beat Poizner to some degree by lurching hard right on illegal immigration. Now she's trying to confuse the issue.

Don't be confused. Whitman's campaign chair is Pete Wilson. Enough said!

Razzing Arizona!

2010-05-04T14:05:00.000-07:00

I had the distict pleasure today of sending the following response to the organizer of a conference that I've routinely attended for the last few years, that is scheduled to be held in Scottsdale, Arizona in September:

Dear Organizer,

Although I've attended your last three conferences dating back prior to the inception of [current company name], I will not be attending this year as I do not wish to carry documentation necessary to comply with current Arizona law requiring proof of citizenship. I will most likely resume attendance at [conference name] when the conference is held at a location more tolerant to a diverse population.

I realize that it is not your fault that Arizona has adopted this draconian law, and that it is probably impossible to change the location of such a large conference on short notice. However, I cannot in good conscience travel to a State where even members of my own family could be harassed for their ethnic background.

Hoping to see you again next year.

Sincerely,

seenos

Commuters' Hell

2009-10-15T07:09:00.000-07:00

I just love it when I get on my commuter bus at 5:30 AM to find that every pair of seats is occupied by a single person with their bags piled on the seat next to them. Some are even sitting in the aisle seat as if to block entrance to the adjacent and empty window seat. Others are wearing silk, probably scented, eyemasks, or their Bose “Conscience Cancelling” Headphones. Everyone pretends to be asleep, which belies the fact that some of them just got on the bus a few blocks away, or even in the line just ahead of me!

There are no smiles or eye contact as I fumble in the dark having to ask people to move their bags, which they didn’t pay for; so that I can have a seat, which I did pay for, only to find myself having walked into what is apparently a contest to determine the World’s Soundest Sleeper!

I actually have to tap someone on the shoulder to get his attention, and that person inevitably looks up at me as if I were The Grim Reaper, with an expression that screams “With all these other people, why oh why did you have to pick me to be one to give up the comfort of my two adjoining seats?”

Not wanting to begin my day with a confrontation or disrupt an entire busload of people, I must decide whether to move on in vain hope of finding a friendlier face, or persist and sit next to this person who appears to be trying to get me to spontaneously combust!

I sit.

But at that moment, every time it happens, I can’t help but ponder how nice it would be if I really was The Grim Reaper, and that I was only there to cause a bus accident!

Must Read Smackdown of "Dick Cheeny"

2009-05-23T10:18:00.000-07:00

This post by David Rees has got to be one of the funniest, most appropriate, reactions to Dick Cheney's recent speech on ~~national security~~ his own insecurity that I've seen anywhere.

My favorite line:

As far as I could tell, his speech was actually some weird kind of mouth-yoga where you keep returning to "9/11" position every thirty seconds

Brilliant!

I Suspect That Dick Cheney Loves International House Of Pancakes!

2009-05-18T21:40:00.000-07:00

For a long time, it’s been considered somewhat unacceptable, even among prominent critics of the Bush administration, to suggest anything remotely resembling a conspiracy theory regarding 9/11.

No elected Democrat will touch the issue. Liberal talking heads on cable TV and left leaning columnists in mainstream publications routinely go out of their way to avoid even pondering the possibility of anything more insidious than a massive coordinated effort by radical Islamic terrorists.

In fact, on Daily Kos – which is usually considered to be one of the most liberal of the progressive political blogs – mentioning the mere presence of questions about the cause of the terror attacks on 9/11 is enough to get you banned from posting on the site.

But as more and more information trickles out about the extreme lengths the Bush administration, and particularly Dick Cheney, were willing to go in order to try to create a justification for war in Iraq, somebody has to at least ask this:

If you’ll torture people to get false confessions to justify a war, what else would you do - or not do, despite ample warning that you should - to get justification to start that same war?

With all due respect to the serious liberals who don’t want to be lumped in with the “tin foil hat” crowd in trumpeting the political equivalent of alien abductions stories, at some point in the stream of revelations about our despicable use of torture, we must at least recognize that every actual conspiracy, and in fact every crime, that is ever solved - begins with a theory!

Note: For those unfamiliar with the acronym, LIHOP stands for the theory that, when faced with warnings about an imminent terrorist attack that might have prompted preemptory action, members of the Bush administration let it happen on purpose! It's not quite as dramatic as the various "inside job" scenarios that are widely thrown around on the Internets, but it also doesn't require the same kind of "headgear" to imagine, particularly after hearing more and more evidence regarding how torture was actually used!

Why Cheney Speaks!

2009-05-13T20:34:00.000-07:00

There’s lot’s of discussion and speculation lately over the fact that after spending eight years of secretly running the government from an impenetrable bunker, Dick Cheney is now all over the television defending his torture program.

Many people are scratching their heads and wondering why the most unpopular member of the previous administration wouldn’t just fade off into the sunset and hope to be forgotten as the country looks “forward and not backward” with it’s charismatic new President.

If I had to venture a guess as to why Cheney keeps talking, it’s this:

The only thing standing between Dick Cheney and criminal prosecution is the facade that torture was a policy decision, and that prosecution represents the “criminalization of politics.” In order to maintain that facade, there must be a continuous debate over whether or not it was “good policy” - that is, whether or not it helped to “keep Americans safe.”

To Cheney, it doesn’t matter whether or not people think that argument has merit. What matters is that both sides are continuously being aired, because in his mind, this means that the Obama Administration and the Democratic Congress have to prioritize it among all of the other policy debates; and with the wide range of stated goals put forward by the Obama administration, investigating and prosecuting torture will never move to the top of the “to do” list.

On the other hand, if public opinion is allowed to crystallize around the idea that the Cheney/Bush torture policies were illegal and immoral, as might happen without Cheney’s constant bleating about how proud he is of those very policies, then it becomes much more feasible to investigate and prosecute without getting in the way of other priorities.

And it becomes more likely that the conversation shifts from the debate about policy, to a discussion and eventual public understanding of what really happened, which increasingly seems to have been something like this:

At the time when Cheney/Bush were in charge and had plenty of warning about an impending terrorist attack, they did not “keep Americans safe.” Instead, they were too preoccupied with the politics of trying to create “a permanent Republican majority!”

After the 9/11 attacks, instead of going after the terrorists who were actually threatening the safety of Americans, they immediately began to line up all the ways they could use fear of terrorists to rationalize and gain acceptance for policies that were criminal! Torture, the war in Iraq, warrantless wiretapping, rushed no-bid contracts to political cronies, were all rolled out immediately, using the pretext of being the only policies the President thought would “keep Americans safe.”

And they did it all with the expectation that they could always avoid prosecution by forcing the debate into being about policy, if ever the debate started to turn toward being about criminality!

So that’s why Cheney feels he has to keep yapping about how torture was good policy. He knows he’s not convincing anybody, but he’s keeping the fire burning on the appearance of a political debate, because that’s the only thing keeping him from being frog marched to prison!

Specter Switch Could Backfire Almost Immediately! [Updated]

2009-05-04T18:16:00.000-07:00

With Arlen Specter’s party switch prompting a huge welcoming embrace from both the Democratic Caucus and the Obama White House, you have to wonder what kind of late game strategy might be on the drawing board to make up for the apparent initial setback when it comes to Obama’s first Supreme Court nomination.

At this point, all indications are that Specter will retain his status on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will force the removal of one current member – presumably Ted Kaufman, who recently was appointed to fill Joe Biden’s seat in Delaware and has the lowest seniority among the Democrats on the committee.

The GOP has already announced that Jeff Sessions (R-KKK,) will succeed the moderate Specter as Ranking Minority Leader on the committee. That leaves another GOP slot on the committee, and there is no reason to think they are inclined to appoint another moderate to replace Specter.

This means that, in addition to the distinctly rightward shift from Specter to Sessions as the head of the minority contingent, the ultimate outcome will likely be to swap Kaufman – the Senator selected to replace Obama’s own VP - for whomever the GOP decides to add to the committee to replace Specter - which could be someone as odious as Saxby Chambliss (R-Slimepit), or James Inhofe (R-Delusionville)!

Let’s hope Specter is worth it!

[Update] According to David Waldman at Congress Matters, the Dems apparently used some leverage over the Specter switch to get the GOP to agree to allow Specter to change sides of the aisle in his committee assignments without bumping another Dem and getting a GOP replacement (essentially building a bigger Dem majority on those committees). Waldman thinks the real concession came because the GOP “reeeeeeeeeelly didn’t want to give an inch on seating Al Franken!”

In addition, the Dems decided to strip Specter of his seniority on those committees until the end of the current congress, creating a situation where he presumably needs to earn the seniority back – which he won’t accomplish very easily if he keeps saying stupid things like wanting Norm Coleman to prevail in his legal battle to overturn the Minnesota election!

At the current rate, Specter may find getting elected as a Democrat to be a particularly rocky path, with the Netroots gearing up to, in the words of Jeff Lieber, “go Full Lamonty” on him in the primary; as well as the growing possibility that Pat Toomey, the scary monster who chased him from the GOP primary, will lose to another moderate like Tom Ridge and make the general election about which of two moderate conservatives is the most trustworthy!

Once You Boil It All Down . . .

2009-04-25T11:50:00.000-07:00

Paul Krugman summed it up in three simple sentences:

Let’s say this slowly: the Bush administration wanted to use 9/11 as a pretext to invade Iraq, even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. So it tortured people to make them confess to the nonexistent link.

There’s a word for this: it’s evil.

And the evidence has begun to filter out that the perpetrators not only knew it was evil, but tried to cover it up!

First, there’s the Zelikow memo objecting to the legal basis used to justify torture that he says was deliberately rounded up and destroyed.

Then there’s Janis Karpinski, who is outspoken in her disdain for high level Bush officials who allowed U.S. Military personnel at Abu Ghraib - whom they now maintain to have been following orders deemed to be legal and justifiable - go to prison, rather than stick up for them at the time the abuses at Abu Ghraib first became public.

In my earlier post on this topic, I suggested that one of Obama’s multiple goals was to maximize the ability to “shake the trees” and bring out whistleblowers in order to build widespread public support for any future prosecutions.

At least one expert, former federal prosecutor Elizabeth De La Vega, agrees - explaining in this piece how appointing a special prosecutor now might cause those with important information about what actually occurred at the highest levels of the Bush administration to clam up.

For the torturers, I’m afraid the genie is out of the bottle, and there’s no way they are going to force it back inside . . . and fortunately for the country, it’s not the torturers’ three wishes the genie is going to grant!

To put it bluntly, with all the evidence that the Bush administration carefully assembled a set of “legal” documents to justify “harsh interrogation techniques,” how can they possibly stick to their story when they were willing to let U.S. soldiers rot in prison to avoid telling it four years ago?

And for Dick Cheney, who remains the leading voice of belligerent defiance regarding Bush torture policies, and who now wants to declassify documents that would save his ass when he was perfectly happy to let them stay classified when they might save the asses of the enlisted men and women who went to prison for performing techniques he now says were "necessary," the response is both completely reprehensible and completely transparent!

Dick Cheney is a grown man, behaving like a child who would let his own dog be beaten, or even euthanized, for repeatedly “eating his homework!”

Image Credit: Vanity Fair, May, 2008

Limbaugh: “Waterboarding Just Like Kiteboarding with Richard Branson!”

2009-04-23T19:13:00.000-07:00

In his ongoing effort to defend the Bush administration’s “enhanced interrogation” methods, Rush Limbaugh on his radio show today, compared techniques involving nudity and stress positions, as well as being repeatedly doused with water while clinging to safety from a forced supine position, to recent photos of Sir Richard Branson kiteboarding near his private island.

“How are the so-called torture pictures at Abu Ghraib all that different from what this supermodel is happily doing during her little island vacation with Richard Branson?” Limbaugh railed.

“These liberals,” he said, “are soooo outraged about what they call ‘torture’ that they forget the fact that a slap or two on a choice part of the body is just what many people desperately crave.” At which point, he demonstrated by slapping himself several times (in an unidentified, but loudly resonating and likely jiggling, location) and crying out “There, I’m torturing myself!”* - presumably while ogling the Branson pictures and reminiscing about his Viagra-fueled Dominican adventure spent with the fellow torture buffs who happen to produce Fox Television’s 24*.

*True

Jonathan Turley is a Stand-Up Guy, but He May Want to Sit Down Regarding Obama’s Response to Torture.

2009-04-19T21:03:00.000-07:00

For many months, George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley has been a leading voice for the rule of law and the importance of prosecuting war crimes related to torture. He’s very compelling, clearly a man of principle, and probably someone I would be proud to see some day sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court.

But when talking about President Obama’s response to Bush era torture, Turley seems quite prone to slipping into spin, rather than fact. Here’s Turley talking to David Schuster about Obama’s decision to release the memos used to justify torture and simultaneously announce that CIA agents who followed the memos in good faith would not be prosecuted. Turley’s conclusion, that Obama is “blocking” an investigation, seems to be a pretty clear example of stretching to find the worst possible interpretation of a mixed set of facts.

While Turley has the luxury of focusing on only one, admittedly noble, goal – holding the perpetrators accountable for war crimes - President Obama has a couple of other goals as well. He needs to avoid the appearance of an overtly partisan investigation that might further incite the racist, gun toting, loonies associated with the recent teabagging phenomena from moving even closer to irrational violence. Second, he needs to maximize his ability to “shake the trees” and get good witnesses who can provide iron-clad evidence that results in irrefutable convictions that have widespread public acceptance (in order to achieve the desired “cleansing effect” on the soul of the nation).

So look at what Obama has actually done:

1) He released a set of memos that he knew would stir public outrage and increase the demand for accountability.

2) He announced that any agents who conducted torture while following orders in good faith would be immune from prosecution.

That’s it! Since we are already starting to see reports of evidence showing that some torture activities exceeded what was authorized by the newly released memos, even Turley would have to admit the likelihood that Obama knew he wasn’t offering immunity to everyone involved in torture.

Now, rather than calling for an investigation of whether or not what occurred was torture, the investigation can be centered on whether activities were conducted “in good faith” according to the rules promulgated in the memos. Even conservatives who insist that the methods currently identified as torture were necessary and justified, would have to condemn those who acted outside of the rules authorized by Bush’s legal “yes men.”

In addition, with those following the “rules” already being given immunity, for those who acted outside of those rules, the natural defense will be to try to argue that whatever they are charged with doing was sanctioned by superiors and thus was “in good faith!” In other words, Obama’s statement of immunity increases the incentive for anyone charged with acting outside of the rules authorized by the torture memos to give up the leaders who authorized them to stretch the rules or act outside of them!

My guess is that Obama knows there are such leaders, and may well be setting up the chess board so that they can eventually be prosecuted in a non-partisan fashion with the widespread public acceptance necessary to avoid derailing the rest of his policy goals.

Sacramento Tea-Bagging! [Updated]

2009-04-15T13:30:00.000-07:00

I took a few minutes at lunch today to walk through the crowd at today's Sacramento "Tea-bag" Tax protest. All I can say is WOW what a bunch of Crazy F-ing Nuts! So glad my tax dollars help pay for all of the CHP security to protect us from these angry mobs!! Here are a few pics:

Where were all these folks during the Bush administration's piling up of debt? Anyone want to take a guess as to how many of these folks will actually get a tax cut from Obama's plan?

[Update by seenos] Just had to add a few of my favorite tea-bagging pics from the day, with editorial comments:

Um, isn't that what we just did?

If we cut taxes to zero, perhaps these ladies will volunteer to defend the country for free! And what does the "No Turn On Red" sign have to do with taxes?

At least one teabagger seems to be having some reservations about joining the party!

Methinks thou protest too much!

Unlike the last president, who wanted to send your entire generation to war! In case you can't read it, the sign in the background says "Capitalism is NOT the Problem. Retarded Elitist Ivy League Lying Politicians Are!" Could you be a little more specific? Who isn't a retarded elitist ivy league lying politician these days?

One of the signs distributed by former GOP congressman, Mark Foley.

The media even found time to conduct interviews at a San Francisco tea party that had nothing to do with taxes!

And the moral of the story is that I can finally retire this image as the quintessential conservative protest photo, because the free market just produced a whole lot of new competition:

Lawrence O'Donnell Speaks for Me!

2009-04-09T16:43:00.000-07:00

Here Lawrence destroys Pat Buchanon in their argument over President Obama and his upcoming speech at Notre Dame. Enjoy!

Left-Over: The Next Phase.

2009-03-24T19:48:00.000-07:00

It’s hard to believe that this blog has been around for nearly 3 ½ years!

It started on October 24, 2005, with Left-Over’s expression of excitement at the possibility that members of the Bush administration might be held accountable (for anything!) as Patrick Fitzgerald prepared to announce indictments in the Valerie Plame CIA leak investigation.

I quickly joined the party by comparing the Republicans of that era, quite unfavorably, to even those of the Nixon-Watergate era, with this eerily accurate prediction:

Unlike Watergate, when the sheer stupidity of the break-in and subsequent cover up led both parties to insist on investigations that drove out a corrupt administration, these Republicans are going to stick with Bush to the end, fueling a fire that will burn the party to the ground, and then keep scorching the earth beneath them for so long that nothing will ever come back!

And with that start, we were off and running, through what now tallies ~~888~~ 889 posts, during a time when some amazing things have happened:

• The Chief of Staff for the Vice President of the United States was convicted of multiple felonies.

• A major U.S. city was nearly lost to Hurricane Katrina.

• Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan surpassed the length of the Vietnam war, and continue with no apparent end in sight.

• The 2006 elections marked a decisive turn against Republican leadership.

• During the primary season leading up to the 2008 elections, an establishment candidate with an aura of inevitability was defeated by a newcomer backed largely by ordinary people.

• The 2008 elections continued the wave of anti-GOP sentiment and gave us the country’s first African-American President.

• The many failures of the Bush presidency – which served as an incubator for greed and corruption - culminated in the most serious economic crisis since the Great Depression.

While all of this happened, we were actively engaged in the task of absorbing each day’s developments and reflecting them back to readers in a way that was, perhaps, entertaining, sometimes informative, and at the very least, always therapeutic for us as writers.

Along the way, there were some memorable posts such as the ones listed below that I think best reflect what we’ve tried to do in this forum:

• Vaccinate Against What?

• The Last Commercial Break of the Bush Presidency.

• Increasing Irrelevancy? Now That’s Something Bush Can Actually Achieve!

But all good things must come to an end! Writing a political blog is both a blessing and a curse, because accumulated momentum adds the weight of responsibility to keep that momentum from stalling. Writing sometimes shifts from being a joyous expression of ideas, to being a chore that must be done even in the absence of inspiration, made harder still by a dwindling amount of feedback from readers who are pulled in many directions from the sheer volume of information available on the Internet.

So it’s time to pull the plug and let it die.

Actually, let me rephrase that, since the nature of blogs is that they don’t really have to die completely. The words remain, always available to be discovered by an accidental tourist, even though new posts aren’t being generated.

That will be the new state of Left-Over, at least for a while. Who knows? It might even become a zombie blog that will occasionally lurch forward, if one of us has an irresistible urge to add a new chapter. Or maybe not!

Perhaps another way to look at the demise/hiatus of Left-Over is to take a lesson from artist Vincent Van Gogh, poet Emily Dickinson, and singer Billie Holiday – all of whom found widespread acceptance and critical acclaim after their deaths, despite toiling for years in relative obscurity.

I think it can clearly be stated that we’ve conquered the “toiling in relative obscurity” phase! There is nothing more to achieve in the art of "toiling in relative obscurity,” so now it’s time to move on to the next phase in the strategic marketing of this blog: We will now begin the stage centered on achieving posthumous notoriety!

Peace!

seenos

PS: Damn! I just finished writing this, and was dawdling before preparing to hit the “upload” button, when I stumbled across an article that hints at one of the few things that would compel me to come out of retirement and resurrect this blog (or begin a new one), as I read that Arnold Schwarzenegger is signaling the possibility of running for the U.S. Senate against Barbara Boxer.

How could I miss being on the scene to make fun of that on a daily basis?

AIG Just Forced President Obama to Become a Populist!

2009-03-17T17:31:00.000-07:00

Despite his amazing success at raising campaign funds through small donations from individual citizens, Barack Obama never campaigned as a populist. He promised “change,” but his rhetoric always suggested a pragmatic approach to achieving goals that left plenty of room for working within existing corporate and political structures, rather than adopting the “throw the bums out” attitude of true populists like John Edwards and Ron Paul.

Obama also took plenty of money from Wall Street in order to get his campaign up and running; and his cabinet choices (Geithner, Gates, Clinton, etc.) certainly seemed to indicate a desire to reassure the traditional forces of power that change wouldn’t happen too fast!

Of course, it could be argued that he really had no choice if he wanted to overcome the formidable obstacles that would stand in the way of his ascension to the presidency. Had he not taken a somewhat moderate, non-frightening, approach to achieving change, he may never have had the opportunity to begin his primary run on an arc that looked viable enough to overcome the “inevitability” of Hillary Clinton. And he may never have had the chance to attract the large and committed donor base that helped push him over the top!

Although Obama seems to have a sincere desire to promote broad-based opportunity for ordinary people, and to hold even corporations accountable for helping to solve the countries’ real problems, it could be argued that he did what he had to do to get in the position of moving the country in the right direction, while accepting that he had to do it in a way that was tolerable to the already rich and powerful.

In other words, he had to give them some slack.

And it seems that AIG has just taken that slack and tied its own noose. Perhaps a noose large enough to squeeze in the heads of all the Wall Street fat cats who have bled the economy dry to feed their own desire for personal wealth and aggrandizement!

Obama is now in the position where if he does not take a harsh populist stand against corporate interests trying to fleece the American taxpayer, he may not have a chance at a second term! He may lose the dedicated support of the millions of ordinary people whom he has relied upon to give momentum to his policy goals.

While it wasn’t Obama’s preferred path at the beginning, at this point, being a populist may be the pragmatic choice; particularly since, as an incumbent in 2012, he no longer needs Wall Street money to propel him into viability. He needs people – ordinary people – to continue to support him.

As one of those early supporters who is still yearning for a counterbalance to the greed and corporate excesses of the Bush years, I can only hope that this was Obama’s plan all along - that he knew, even as he promised change, that some things never change!

Perhaps AIG just proved him right!

Let Me Spare the Washington Post From Its Own “Mea Crama!”

2009-03-15T11:08:00.000-07:00

I’ve read lots of commentary on John Stewart’s public spanking of CNBC’s Jim Cramer, but nothing more fitting than Glenn Greenwald’s point that Cramer isn’t all that different from the rest of the traditional media in his willingness to pass on lies and then claim innocence when they turned out to be wrong.

Jim Cramer isn't an aberration. What he did and the excuses he offered are ones that are embraced as gospel to this day by most of our establishment press corps, and to know that this is true, just look at what they do and say about their roles. But at least Cramer wants to appear to be contrite for the complicit role he played in disseminating incredibly destructive and false claims from the politically powerful. That stands in stark contrast to David Gregory, Charlie Gibson, Brian Williams, David Ignatius and most of their friends, who continue to be defiantly and pompously proud of the exact same role they play.

Then sure enough, as if on cue, I find this Washington Post “report” suggesting that Barack Obama risks being seen as “too partisan” if he mentions the fact that he inherited a failing economy from George Bush.

Give me a break! Didn’t we just have an election in which John McCain’s last hope of prevailing went up in flames at the precise moment he suggested that “the fundamentals of our economy (were) strong, while everyone knew that they weren’t? I believe George Bush was still President at that time, so don’t give me Ari Fleischer suggesting that Obama’s credibility is at risk if he points out the obvious:

“There's a fascinating behind-the-scenes trend taking place for someone who remains a very popular president," said Ari Fleischer, a former Bush press secretary, describing the decline in Obama's approval ratings and an increase in disapproval numbers. "His response to that trend is to turn up the blame on George Bush and everything that came before him. And he was the one who talked about getting past partisanship.”

Jim Cramer just went on The Daily Show and had to apologize profusely because he had been (gasp!) "lied to by CEOs" hoping to boost the value of their stocks despite horribly overvalued assets. Unable to muster even a token rationale for his willingness to pass on such misleading information, Cramer had no choice but to bend over and take his punishment, while meekly wishing he had tried harder to expose the lies, and promising to do better.

So let me spare the Washington Post the same indignity that Cramer was forced to endure at the hands of John Stewart:

When Ari Fleischer is talking to you about Obama’s extreme partisanship, he’s lying!

When anyone tells you that the American people want the new President to shield George Bush from the undeniable fact that his policies sent the economy into a downward spiral, he’s lying!

They are lying just like the CEOs who so "painfully" lied to Jim Cramer, who then did nothing to correct those lies but actually gave them weight by letting them be aired on his show.

When the Washington Post presents lies as fact, they spread the same kind of bullshit that Cramer just had to eat in front of millions!

If the good folks at the Washington Post really want to be considered respected purveyors of news, instead of easily manipulated, misleading clowns like Cramer, I’d suggest they take the opportunity now to "try harder and do better," rather than waiting for someone like John Stewart to tar and feather them in front of the whole world!

Madoff Just a Tumor in an Economy Where Greed has Metastasized!

2009-03-12T20:33:00.000-07:00

Sure, it’s a good thing that Bernie Madoff is likely to pay a harsh price for his crimes, but let’s not think that punishing him is a decisive victory that frees us to focus on the future while turning the page on past corruption and greed.

After all, throwing the book at Madoff is not going to stop white collar crime any more than throwing the book at a single marijuana user is going to wipe out drug use.

During the last eight years of the Bush administration, and arguably during every administration going back to Ronald Reagan’s, the American free market laissez faire economy has become riddled with greed, to the point of being slowly killed.

Catching and prosecuting a Bernie Madoff is a big step, but there are plenty of other tumors out there capable of killing the economy – plenty of other frauds and scams that will occur if the greed that has been allowed to spread is not systematically checked, both by investigating and prosecuting past crimes, and creating systems that prevent the opportunity and incentives that allow new tumors to develop.

McCain the Barometer!

2009-03-08T19:57:00.000-07:00

I really don’t have a good feel at all for what should be done for the auto industry. I’m torn between letting them fail, in order to make sure that the failed management types are flushed out of power; and finding a way to hold them together, in order to save jobs that are critically important as we try to stave off a major depression.

At the same time, what I do know about the auto industry and just about everything else, is that when John McCain takes a strong position – like pushing hard for bankruptcy for General Motors – I’m pretty sure that it’s an uninformed, politically-motivated, and probably disastrous idea!

At this point in his political career (and frankly, I’m guessing throughout his life if I’d really been paying attention), the man just exudes ignorance!

From Russia With Love Hate!

2009-03-06T19:16:00.000-08:00

As some of you know, my office overlooks Civic Center Plaza in San Francisco, which gives me a straight-on view of the courthouse steps in front of the California Supreme Court. Consequently, I couldn’t help but notice the raucous protest going on below me yesterday as the Court heard oral arguments over the constitutionality of Proposition 8.

Political junkie and gay rights advocate that I am, I decided to spend my lunch hour mingling with the crowd and checking out the scene, while listening to some of the speeches on the steps outside the courthouse.

As you might expect, there was a large, very spirited, contingent of Prop 8 opponents, and it was gratifying to see the diverse group that included all ages, races, and socioeconomic categories, as well as many straight supporters among the crowd.

However, there were also a surprisingly large number of highly organized Prop 8 supporters, with huge signs and matching shirts with the slogan: “Marriage = One Man & One Woman.” While smaller in number, they were very loud and confrontational (though seemingly not violent). Also odd was the fact that as I walked through the crowd, it seemed that a very large percentage of them were speaking Russian to each other. I mean almost all of them!

I tried to talk to a few of them, as I was curious about what organization they belonged to, but had little success. Several of them couldn’t really communicate with me in English, and the others were reluctant to tell me anything. All I could get was one guy who told me they were from “the Jewish God,” and that they had “just met each other.”

Well, I did a little research and it turns out that there is a very large population of immigrants from the former Soviet Union (Russia, Latvia, Ukraine, etc.) that have settled in the Sacramento area, and that most in this community are affiliated with one of over 50 to 60 evangelical Christian churches led by rabidly anti-gay pastors. Several of them are known to be involved with international organizations currently being tracked as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center, and many of the members have become fixtures in vocal opposition to gay pride events in California.

Talk about hypocrisy! Most of these people came to this country in part to gain the right to freely practice their religion, and yet they are now using their religion to mobilize efforts to deny basic rights to another oppressed minority. It’s difficult to know how to process these undeniable facts without developing some negative ethnic stereotypes.

Ultimately, I guess I must simply take it as evidence that one all too prevalent component of human nature – the desire to feel powerful and important by finding someone inferior to demonize – suggests that either man can’t possibly have been created “in God’s image,” or that God is actually a somewhat cruel being who created man for his own sadistic entertainment! Either way, the actions of these people is proof that their own belief system is completely bankrupt!

All images were taken, quite discretely, with my Treo.

Not So Deep Thought:

2009-03-05T18:32:00.000-08:00

If Rush Limbaugh is now the de facto head of the Republican Party, then does the party have a new de facto ass? Or is the Republican Party now a Gastropod?

Who’s Going to Pay For the Bush Library?

2009-03-03T19:50:00.000-08:00

Life must be tough when you’re a recently replaced ex-President, who is trying to raise funds for a legacy-fluffing monument during the onset of a global depression caused by your policy failures!

According to this report, Dubya himself has been forced to hit the phones, but he must find himself asking the question: “Who ya gonna call?” in a world without “Ghostbusters”

Bush left office with approval ratings in the 30’s, so you can probably take the other 60 to 70 percent of Americans off the call list.

The remaining base of supporters are largely made up of the same people who just listened to the leading conservative extremists at CPAC (Coulter, Limbaugh, etc.) treat Bush like so much toxic waste at their annual conference.

Other reports show that the Bush Library website, which is the primary means of eliciting small dollar donations, is lagging behind even some parody websites in Internet traffic (and no, the image above is from the real website and not the parody!)

Large potential corporate donors are likely too busy begging for bailout money to stave off bankruptcy to consider chipping in for the Bush Library. (Note to Tim Geithner: How about adding donations to the Bush Library to the list, with corporate jets and golf junkets to the Caymans, as banned uses of bailout money?)

Of course, there is also a new website specifically for “Bush/Cheney Alumni,” so maybe there’s hope that the “loyal Bushies” from his administration will pony up some money for the cause. But many of them are still trying to find jobs. So far, nobody has been willing to contribute so much as a blog post, or a testimonial to “set the record straight,” so it’s hard to imagine them generously opening their wallets for the ex-boss’s library!

I guess that probably only leaves his daddy’s friends, the Saudis, as the likely recipients of Bush 43’s telephone solicitations. Will they come up with the dough, out of loyalty to Poppy Bush? Yeah, they probably will!

But who knows? The Bush Bust™ has become a global phenomenon, and it increasingly looks like the U.S. can no longer be counted on as a gullible and insatiable market for oil. It’s highly possible that even the oil producing countries of the Middle East will retract into financial turtle mode rather than continue their binge spending ways amid an uncertain future.

And what possible use, really, do the Saudis have with a ~~library~~ propaganda generation facility designed to glorify a spoiled, petulant shithead who has no influence on anyone remotely connected to the current levers of power, much less any power of his own?

When it’s all said and done – and let me be the first to suggest it here – we might actually see the complete rebuilding of the city of New Orleans before we see the completion of the George W. Bush Presidential Library, at least in its current vision. They may have to scale it down to the size of a branch library in a small town neighborhood strip mall, once they find out who is still willing to donate!

“Fiscal Discipline” Includes Finding What Was Stolen!

2009-03-01T21:07:00.000-08:00

How ironic that Republicans are now giving self-righteous speeches about “fiscal discipline” after they presided over the largest ~~bungling~~ theft of taxpayer funds in the history of our country?

Now that a Democratic administration wants to use the power of government to ensure that the economy is revived by channeling funds to those who need it most (and who will spend it rather than socking it away in Swiss bank accounts to avoid taxes), the Republicans have become all high and mighty about the importance of “frugality” and “living within our means!”

Well, frugality is fine, and surely many Americans need to learn that a satisfying life does not revolve around conspicuous consumption. But if we are going to learn to be disciplined about spending, we should also learn to be disciplined about enforcing our laws against theft of taxpayers’ money, including everything that occurred during the Bush Global Theft Pandemic™!

Just think how much the economy would be helped if we could investigate, find, and re-claim for the American people, the following funds:

1. The money that went missing in Iraq.
2. The money sucked out of the economy by war profiteers like Halliburton and Blackwater, etc.
3. The taxes avoided by rich scammers who funnel their wealth into offshore accounts in The Caymans, Switzerland, Dubai, etc.
4. The windfall profits raked in by the oil companies through price manipulation and gouging at the pump during the fog of war.
5. The money stolen by fraudsters like Madoff, Stanford, and many others.

Obviously, this is not a complete list, but it’s a list that would likely add up to much more than the amount of the current stimulus package that blowhards like John McCain are calling “generational theft.” After all, fiscal discipline is more than just clutching your wallet. It’s also about making sure nobody gets away with robbing your house!

And speaking of “houses” and “generational theft,” how about if we remove the real incentive to hoard wealth from younger generations and put a stop to “generational theft” once and for all, by increasing the Estate Tax on old f**kers with 14 houses?

Developmentally, They Really Are Children!

2009-02-26T20:46:00.000-08:00

UC Berkeley linguistics professor, George Lakoff, has a brilliant post called “The Obama Code” that was so widely distributed throughout the blogosphere, that I’m surprised [No I’m not] Professor Lakoff didn’t ask to be a guest poster on Left-Over!

It’s a great discussion of Obama’s subtle communication style, as it attempts to help progressives read between the lines of Obama’s multi-layered message. While it’s all great reading, this section caught my attention:

Conservatives tend to think in terms of direct causation. The overwhelming moral value of individual, not social, responsibility requires that causation be local and direct. For each individual to be entirely responsible for the consequences of his or her actions, those actions must be the direct causes of those consequences. If systemic causation is real, then the most fundamental of conservative moral—and economic—values is fallacious.

Global ecology and global economics are prime examples of systemic causation. Global warming is fundamentally a system phenomenon. That is why the very idea threatens conservative thinking. And the global economic collapse is also systemic in nature. That is at the heart of the death of the conservative principle of the laissez-faire free market, where individual short-term self-interest was supposed to be natural, moral, and the best for everybody. The reality of systemic causation has left conservatism without any real ideas to address global warming and the global economic crisis.

This section mirrors an idea that I’ve often pondered, one that was echoed in this DKos post that mockingly notes the failure of three notable GOP attempts to respond to Obama’s popularity - the “trifecta” of Sarah Palin, Michael Steele, and Bobby Jindal!

As best as I can discern, each of these stooges represent some sort of response to the Obama phenomenon. And while I can't blame Republicans for reacting to the Obama phenomenon, watching them try is both sidesplittingly funny and mind-numbingly sad. It evidences either a shockingly thorough ignorance or a deliberate denial of Obama's appeal.

Is it possible that they actually believe that [youth + melanin = instant majority]?

It all points to the image of conservatives as having a relatively simple-minded approach to interpreting the World – a somewhat childish, immature approach! In fact, I’ve frequently noted that the GOP seems to respond like spoiled children to just about everything that doesn’t go their way.

For example, tax cuts, which are to extreme conservatives very much like cookies to a small child. If one cookie tastes good, then they instinctively want to devour the entire box, and then run to the store to stock up on more cookies! It is as if, developmentally, they are incapable of understanding that eating too many cookies will rot your teeth and make you fat!

It’s Lakoff’s distinction between direct and systemic causation over and over again! And it’s what I alluded to recently when I expressed surprise that the GOP would actually expect people to blame Obama if the stimulus doesn’t immediately fix The Bush Bust™.

Somehow, it seems that extreme conservatives have a stunted capacity to comprehend the World beyond immediate appearances, and so they think that what appeals to the electorate about Obama is that he’s young, charismatic and multi-racial. Hence, their foolish wagers on Palin, Steele, and Jindal as the future leaders of their party.

They aren’t capable of understanding that what people really appreciate about Obama is that he’s, honest, thoughtful and has integrity, while devoting himself to pushing to improve the lives of Americans of both parties; In other words, “systemic” qualities, rather than “direct” visible qualities.

This also explains why Obama seems willing to give conservatives a sometimes puzzling level of respect - because they can’t help it! To do otherwise would be like getting angry at a developmentally disabled child for being “stupid!” Obama knows that conservatives can only learn at their own (slower) pace, and that the best way to help them learn is to be supportive and consistently set a good example.

On the other hand, there is a serious problem! While it makes sense to provide support and leadership to a spoiled and perhaps developmentally stunted child in the hope of enabling the chance to mature, it would not make sense to put that child in charge of the family budget, or let that child be the spokesperson for dealing with disagreeable neighbors!

Likewise, conservatives, with their simple-minded and childish understanding of the world, should not be placed in the position of governing the Nation. Hopefully, by watching Obama demonstrate how to govern in a mature, adult, manner, any voters capable of understanding the difference will be drawn away from supporting conservative candidates.

The extreme conservatives will surely continue their superficial and illogical criticisms, and will keep throwing their periodic tantrums over not getting enough cookies. But as we are beginning to see already, their numbers will continue to dwindle until, as a political force, they can all fit in the small bus!

Candy Crowley: What a Republican Cheerleader Looks Like!

2009-02-25T19:13:00.000-08:00

After listing to Crowley’s ridiculous (but predictable) interview on Stephanie Miller’s radio show this morning, in which she offered her impressions of President Obama's address and the Republican response, I couldn't help but shoot off the following e-mail:

Dear Stephanie,

I am normally a big fan of your show, but today I was really disappointed to hear your interview with CNN's Candy Crowley, because it was clear that Crowley's entire purpose on the show was to make excuses for Bobby Jindal's terrible performance in response to President Obama's address to Congress (assuring us that Jindal is much smarter and more popular than he showed last night); and to tell us that Obama is not as popular as the evidence suggests.

Crowley wants us to believe that Obama only seems popular because it's his first month as President, specifically pointing out that George W. Bush was "just as popular" after his first address to Congress, and discounting Obama's high approval numbers in the post-address polls by asserting that they were “weighted toward Democratic voters” who watched the address.

Essentially, Crowley was relentless in her assertion that Jindal and the Republicans are better than they looked, while Obama and the Democrats are worse than they looked, and yet you didn't directly call her on any of it! You made a few quips about Jindal that were completely ignored by Crowley, who stuck to her "Republicans = underrated, Democrats = overrated" theme for the entire interview, before being sent off with enthusiastic appreciation for being a "News Goddess!"

Give me a break! Crowley was nothing but a right-wing hack propagandist trying desperately to keep the playing field level after Obama made his conservative detractors like Jindal look petty and foolish. She deserves absolutely none of the deference you gave her. She certainly shouldn't be treated as a respectable journalist, much less a "Goddess," when she has such a clear agenda that is out of touch with all empirical evidence about President Obama's wide support from the majority of the American people.

Really, Stephanie, Candy Crowley's assessment of the political terrain is worse than useless! Your listeners would be better informed if you left her off the show and substituted a couple more fart jokes!

Sincerely,

Seenos

Too Dumb to Live.

2009-02-23T20:07:00.000-08:00

Inspired by this account of the ongoing PR battle surrounding the stimulus package, Kos points out the obvious stupidity in GOP efforts to use a growing deficit to argue the need for more tax cuts!

And if that’s not dumb enough for you, here’s more from the same article:

. . . the Republican Party has made its own bet: that the stimulus package that Democrats rushed through Congress will have been deemed a failure by the time the 2010 elections arrive, leading voters to rebuke Obama and reward the GOP with much-needed victories.

Seventy percent of the American people understand perfectly well that the current gaping wound to our economy was caused by George W. Bush and the Republicans.

The stimulus represents Barack Obama’s attempt to slather on enough antibiotic ointment to allow the wound to slowly heal.

And the GOP, in all their undiluted “brilliance,” think they can spend the next two years wiping at the ointment and picking the scab . . . and in 2010, if there’s still an open wound, people are going to blame it on Obama?

How do these people even make it though the day without stepping out in front of cars or lighting themselves on fire with their own kitchen stoves?

Roland Burris’ Career Goes From Needing an Engraver to Needing an Embalmer!

2009-02-22T08:58:00.000-08:00

This is the Roland Burriss monument, already engraved with a partial list of his many accomplishments.”

A close-up view of the list shows some pretty impressive feats, probably even worthy of his self-proclaimed title of “Trail Blazer."

Too bad he didn’t get to engage the family engraver in time to add “U.S. Senator” before the current embarrassment he has brought on himself. Nearly everyone but his dog is calling on him to resign. Even the White House is signaling that he should “think hard” about his future. His own Chief of Staff has just resigned.

Yet why won’t I be surprised if he keeps fighting for his political life, even as the embalmer is waiting alongside his career with a huge syringe of formaldehyde? It’s almost as if the lying, delusional demonic life form that inhabits the body of Rod Blagojevich has jumped, B-movie style, into Burris as well.

Of course, since it appears Burris has the engraver on retainer, he might as well go ahead and get some work out of him. How about:

First African-American in Illinois to Become:

A Laughing Stock Who Was Canned by the Democratic Party After Lying Under Oath to Get a Senate Seat.

Then again, I guess there’s no need to mention the “Democratic” Party, since everyone knows that in the GOP, such behavior gets you a leadership position!

California Budget Aftermath . . .

2009-02-20T19:43:00.000-08:00

• Nate Silver breaks down the implications of Abel Maldonado’s open primary gambit, and concludes that it might seem appealing to some voters, but it tends to favor the minority party and could produce a land of a thousand Liebermans!

• Big surprise: According to Brian Leubitz, the “dinosaur” media are positively drooling over open primaries.

• Governor Schwarzenegger is set to appear on This Week with George Snuffalupagus on Sunday to crow about his “great victory,” and answer the decidedly non-burning question:

Is there a future for Arnold's "post-partisan" politics?

“Post-leadership” politics, more like!

• Yet Arnold says the budget compromise was due to his optimism and hard work:

I am an optimist, and I never give up. I approached this problem the same way I approached bodybuilding, when I said I would be a world champion but was told I was crazy; and the way I approached Hollywood when the critics said a guy named Schwarzenegger with an Austrian accent would never be a box-office winner. My goal in these negotiations was a responsible budget for California that fixed our system once and for all, so I went for it with that same optimism and determination.

Yeah, right! Let’s recap, shall we?

Here’s how Arnold approached bodybuilding:

And here’s how Arnold approached Hollywood:

(Note: The images are just an added bonus. It's the links that tell the story!)

The GOP Can Kiss Off Statewide Office in California Forever! [Updated]

2009-02-18T18:33:00.000-08:00

As Californians wait on the edge of the cliff for a single GOP vote that will keep the rest of the party from being the ones to push us all into the abyss, the current “last hope,” Abel Maldonado, is apparently throwing around a list of demands required to get his vote.

Reportedly, he aspires to run for statewide office, and wants to guarantee his ability to survive a GOP primary, and so he is willing to overtly hold the entire State hostage to his demands!

This naturally makes me wonder how any Republican could possibly hold such aspirations in a predominantly democratic state, when they have stubbornly clung to a destructive ideology even after it became clear that it meant burning down their own house to prove a meaningless point.

Rather than giving in to Maldonado’s demands, the Democrats should call him out for what he is – an extortionist who is willing to sacrifice California for his own personal ambition!

Make it clear that Maldonado, and any other Republican who refuses to negotiate in good faith with efforts to salvage a dire situation with a difficult compromise, will never win a statewide office in California!

Make it clear that continuing to reject every possible solution to pull California out of an economic freefall is a direct affront to, and in fact an attempt to undercut, the ability of President Obama to carry out his national policy goals; and that any one of them who aspires to any elected office beyond their gerrymandered wingnut districts will face a fierce challenge based on their failure to consider California, and by extension the entire Nation, during this critical moment!

Only if Maldonado, and others who may have higher political ambitions, begin to see their obstructionism as an albatross that will hold them down forever, will they begin to release their grip on Grover Norquist’s member long enough to extend an open hand to their fellow Californians.

[Update] Now that the deal is done, with Maldonado finally agreeing to support it in exchange for some probably meaningless concessions, it's important to realize that Dan Weintraub is right when he points out that the GOP obstructionist tactics won!

The narrative has to continue to be driven forward that the budget process in California is broken, and the GOP took advantage of it - like the thief who steals your car stereo through an already broken window! They will do it again and again until we fix the window (and probably install a good car alarm too!)

Already, there are two ballot initiatives beginning to circulate that would follow John Garamendi's suggestion to reduce the required margin on budget issues from two-thirds to 55 percent (which is better than nothing, but still amounts to merely rolling up the window enough that they can't get their entire arms through!)

State of the CA State Budget!

2009-02-16T16:10:00.000-08:00

For those of you not in California - we are in the midst of a ginormous budget mess. For the last 100 days state leaders and the Governor have been huddled together trying to come to an agreement on how to squeeze 41 Billion dollars out of a dysfunctional California economy. Three days ago an agreement was finally struck with a balance of "Taxes", cuts and borrowing. The legislature convened to vote on the massive 26 bill package. Then somewhere in the middle of the procedure the Minority Republican Senators decided that the deal was off - even though their leader, the Assembly Republican leader and the Governor were all on board.

So now we sit waiting for one Republican Senator to decide to vote yes on the package. The State of California perched at the edge of a financial cliff................. and one Senator can keep it from happening. But instead that senator wants to play games, give cryptic interviews and bask in his new found media spotlight.

And so we wait!

You can follow the ongoing mess Twittered here by my pal John Myers from KQED radio.

And while you are awaiting more tweets - enjoy this clip of Senate Pro Tem Darrel Steinberg at the end of a 28 hour session Sunday night 2/15 - putting the right wing Senators in their place!

Not So Deep Thought

2009-02-15T19:50:00.000-08:00

Why is it that every politician, on either side of the aisle, must have a stool that has exactly three legs? Wouldn’t the American people be better served by a four, or even five, legged stool? Or how about a La-Z-Boy?

I Wish Sean Hannity Was Right!

2009-02-13T08:25:00.000-08:00

Among the desperate Republican efforts to discredit the stimulus bill was Sean Hannity’s claim that the bill is so full of wasteful spending that it includes large sums of money that would be used to build such things as "Frisbee Golf Courses."

Of course it wasn’t true. In fact, the bill expressly prohibits spending on such parks, but Hannity is such an ignorant tool that he apparently failed to read the bill before spewing his criticism.

And it’s too bad Hannity isn’t right about the bill! I’ve been a Frisbee golfer (actually known as "Disc Golf") for over 20 years, and I love the sport enough to wish there were more courses all across the country. The reason for the paucity of good Disc Golf courses is pretty obvious: It’s not a big money maker like "ball golf," but instead is truly a "sport of the people" that just might be the perfect addition to any plan for dealing with the current economic crisis.

Instead of appealing to Wall Street CEO’s looking to blow their obscene bonuses on something other than hookers, Disc Golf attracts a motley crew (many of whom look like they belong in “Motley Crue!”) It attracts young kids, looking for a cheap, relaxing good time. It attracts old geezers, with their homemade disc/cooler carts. Basically, Disc Golf requires only a few things from players: a couple of discs, the effort needed to find a course, and free time (the last one is the reason I don’t play more than I do!)

And it’s still way too difficult to find a good course!

I once joined a group of friends in an informal “cross country” Disc Golf tournament where we set out to play 108 different holes in one day. In order to do this, we had to put in nearly 400 miles of driving to connect enough courses to get to 108 (we probably would have stopped at 100, but we needed a multiple of 9!) In order to finish, we had to tee off our first hole at 5 AM, and yet we found that even at such an ungodly hour, we were sharing the course with a variety of assorted characters who seemed as if they had been up all night throwing discs.

It’s an odd and exclusive group, disc golfers, and I suspect that going forward there are going to be many more people who fall into the cultural and socioeconomic categories that tend to lead people to the sport.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that, based on the kind of self-selection that determines the exclusive world of disc golfers, if we are really heading into "The Next Great Depression (or, as I prefer to call it, “The Bush Bust™”), and will be experiencing up to a decade of double digit unemployment, we’re going to need a lot more Disc Golf courses!

The Game Board Is Set: Advantage Obama!

2009-02-10T18:47:00.000-08:00

After watching the President’s press conference and listening to several senators, particularly Ben Nelson (D-Umbshit) and Barbara Boxer (D-Lightful), give their post conference assessments on the Simulus Bill, what began to gel in my mind was a range of future scenarios that all work well for Obama.

Two consistent themes emerged: “We need to act immediately” and “Republicans are making us get 60 votes!”

With the general acceptance of these two ideas, Obama is in pretty good shape – because if the compromised version of the stimulus bill works, despite being watered down in order to get a few GOP votes as well as support from the Ben Nelsons and Joe Liebermans of the World, Obama can still take credit for pushing it over heavy Republican objection.

If it doesn’t work, Obama can approach Phase Two with a statement sounding something like this:

Look, the economy was dying! It was on the table with its heart stopped and we needed to act immediately to shock it back to life. I would have preferred to use our full power in order to maximize the chances of jolting the economy back to life. But the Republicans made us get 60 votes, which meant that we had to dial down the power to conserve enough energy to pick up a few more votes. We did this, in the hope that it would work anyway, if we acted quickly enough!

Unfortunately, we were unsuccessful.

The scope of the problem was too great for the reduced shock we ended being able to provide, and now we have another decision:

Do we turn up the dial to full power, where I wanted it in the first place, and keep trying to save the patient?

Or do we proclaim the patient dead?

I think we, as a people, are too resilient and too resourceful to just give up in the face of adversity. I still think we can save our economy if we have the determination and discipline to keep trying!

And that’s why I’m asking the Congress to provide an additional $xxxxxxxxx as quickly as possible, so we can carry out the responsibility we have to our children and grandchildren to get this economy beating strongly again!

I'd say the Republican couldn't refuse, but I know better. They just can't refuse without looking even more useless than they already do!

Separated at Birth?

2009-02-09T18:03:00.000-08:00

Is it just me, or as Susan Collins becomes more prominent as one of the faces of Republican centrist nitpicking over the most needed components of the “Bush Depression Prevention Bill,” is she beginning to look more and more like Arlen Specter in a wig and a dress?

What the Players in the Stimulus Battle Really Want!

2009-02-08T12:32:00.000-08:00

As Barack Obama prepares to barnstorm the country in a campaign style push to build support for the quick passage of an economic stimulus bill, I think it’s worth breaking down the apparent desires of the various players regarding this bill.

First of all, however, I want to highlight the most obvious truism spoken about the bill in recent days, which was Obama’s light hearted mocking of his critics while pointing out that “spending is the point” of stimulus! More specifically, as both liberal and conservative economists would likely agree, the point of stimulus is to get more money in circulation – by putting it in the hands of those who will turn around and spend it. The only real disagreement, on the surface, between liberals and conservatives is over how to get that money in circulation, with liberals favoring direct spending and conservatives favoring tax cuts as an alternative method of “putting more money in peoples’ pockets.”

That’s the basic political debate, albeit one filled with lots of blowhard posturing and hidden agendas that get in the way of the basic logic behind the point of the stimulus bill. So here is how I would characterize the real desires of these various players:

Barack Obama – He wants a bill that will work at easing the economic crisis, so that the initial steps of his presidency will be seen as a success.

Conservative Republicans – They want two things: the inclusion of as many tax cuts as possible that might provide benefits to the wealthy as “collateral stimulus;” and a reduction of actual stimulus such that the bill will fail and allow them to blame it on Obama.

“Centrist” Republicans – They want only one thing, which is to remain electable in their States. (It should be noted that in the House, there are no centrist Republicans; and in the Senate, there are only “Centrist” Republicans from centrist or liberal-leaning States who would otherwise have the same desires as Conservative Republicans!)

Centrist Democrats – They also seem to want only one thing, which is as little change as possible! This, I suppose, is the same as saying they want to remain electable in their more conservative districts or States (a benevolent interpretation), or that they are stealth Conservative Republicans (a more skeptical interpretation).

Mainstream Democrats – They are the hardest to peg as a group. Some undoubtedly want a bill that will be effective in turning around the economy; a few apparently just want some pork; and others (cough, Harry Reid, cough!) mainly want to avoid making the Republicans embarrass themselves with a real filibuster against saving the economy!

Majority of the American People - They wants a bill that will work at easing the economic crisis, so that the initial steps of Barack Obama’s presidency will be seen as a success.

So I guess the point of this exercise is to say that, with Obama set to conduct a series of town halls with real people about the stimulus bill, he will finally have a chance to talk to a group that he knows want the same thing that he does!

That group will likely be more accepting of the basic logic behind the point of stimulus than the members of Congress - which is that getting the money to those who will spend it is best accomplished by spending to provide jobs to those who don’t otherwise have them; and not by cutting taxes for those who already have sources of income being taxed (and who may have the flexibility to put the additional money in their pockets rather than spending it!)

Damn, Now I’ve Got to Give up Cheez-its!

2009-02-05T19:51:00.000-08:00

Well, it looks like Kellogg is the first self righteous bunch of bastards who think they are too good to be associated with Michael Phelps over a single sleazy tabloid photo of Phelps taking a bong hit:

The Battle Creek, Mich.-based company said Thursday that Phelps's behavior _ caught on camera and published Sunday in the British tabloid News of the World _ is "not consistent with the image of Kellogg."

Frankly, I would agree with them if they had said that Michael Phelps “is not consistent with the image of Kellogg.” Phelps is an amazing physical specimen, while Kellogg pretty much specializes in ruining the physique of its customers!

On the other hand, take a look at their list of products and tell me the image of Kellogg isn’t completely consistent with Phelps’ “behavior!”

So Much for Three-Dimensional Chess!

2009-02-04T18:47:00.000-08:00

For those convinced that every time Barack Obama make’s an inexplicable move (like Hillary Clinton for State, keeping Robert Gates as Def Sec, or using his influence to enable Joe Lieberman to stay in the Dem Caucus), he must have a complex plan that involves so many future moves that nobody else is smart enough to figure them out, I think Tom Daschle’s withdrawal for HHS kind of ends that line of argument.

Barack Obama may be inspirational and brilliant, and certainly he is worlds above what we’ve had leading us in Washington for the last 8 years, but there’s no way Daschle’s withdrawal amid a cloud of controversy can be spun as more evidence that Obama is way ahead of us all in his strategic planning!

This proves that Obama’s judgment is fallible, and I say this knowing it’s a statement Barack would accept and agree with. In fact he has said as much, admitting in a recent speech that “there will be setbacks and false starts,” and accepting responsibility for the vetting failure that caused him to lose a key cabinet choice.

It also proves that the most important role for Obama’s supporters, going forward, is not to sit back and wait to see what the chess master Obama will do, but to make known our wishes, even when they don’t mesh with Obama’s stated policy goals. We should express our skepticism when his methods for achieving our preferred goals seem to call for skepticism.

Like, say, when he nominates an anti-labor Republican as Commerce Secretary knowing full well the Democratic Governor is only going to appoint another Republican!

“Bipartisanship” may sound great on paper, and in fact it may be Obama’s quickest and best chance of fixing a sick and dying country. But until Republicans, and even Blue Dog Democrats, show that they view “bipartisanship” as something other than a one way street to getting more of what they want (i.e.: not the change we’ve been hoping for), I find it hard to envision a successful strategy that doesn’t ultimately end up marginalizing ~~conservatism~~ conservative obstructionism to the fringes of social acceptability, and creating something approaching “unipartisanship” toward progressive leaning Democrats.

Leaaaaave Michael Phelps Allllooooone!!!!!!

2009-02-02T19:51:00.000-08:00

I’ve already had it with breathless speculation from various media outlets about how Michael Phelps’ career may be "in ruins” because he was photographed taking a bong hit at a party. Enough with the self righteous condemnation about a failure to live up to his responsibilities as a role model! Or how he’ll undoubtedly be punished with the loss of corporate endorsements!

The guy made a mistake and apologized. End of story! Yeah, he’s a role model who didn’t live up to the ridiculous standards of perfection society places on, well, athletes and perhaps clergy, and that’s about it! Everyone else, particularly media critics and overzealous photographers, get to f**k up without consequence. If Phelps ends up in rehab, or begins swimming like he’s constantly bloated on Cheetos or Taco Bell “sixth meals,” he’ll have to deal with the consequences. Otherwise, the kid is a swimmer, who is competent enough and disciplined enough to have won eight frickin' gold medals!

It’s not like he spent the last eight years in the most visible and influential position in the World as an alcoholic, former cocaine abusing, man-child who completely failed at everything he touched, and whose mistakes actually killed people! Phelps didn’t enable the destruction of the World’s economy, while authorizing war crimes and ignoring his responsibility to protect Americans from natural disasters and runaway corporate greed!

Unlike George W. Bush, who will still have plenty of eager corporate donors willing to help build a Presidential Library and “Think Tank” as a monument to his complete and utter failures, Michael Phelps is an unqualified success in his real responsibilities - the ones he carries out in the pool!

Phelps’ mistake hurt no one and will likely have no impact on his swimming ability (either positive or negative). In fact, if he wasn’t motivated to prove he can out-swim anyone on the planet again in the 2012 Olympics, I think the odds on another eight gold medals in London just went up exponentially with the growing chorus of finger pointers trying to boost their own self worth by calling him a failure!

As for me, a lifelong swimmer who actually spends hard earned money on swimming related products, if I hear of any corporate sponsor dropping Phelps specifically because of this momentary lapse of judgment (and some slimeball with a camera and an opportunistic desire to tarnish a hero), I will never spend another dime on anything from that company again!

Gillibranded!

2009-01-30T20:23:00.000-08:00

While I deliberately chose to stay out of the intramural pissing match between lefty bloggers over Caroline Kennedy, now that Hillary Clinton’s former Senate seat has been filled by Kirsten Gillibrand, I couldn’t help notice some sharply contrasting assessments of her selection.

Consider Paul Begala’s glowing description of Gillibrand as a “star” and potential future female version of Barack Obama:

Listening to Gillibrand speak of how Hillary Clinton inspired her, I couldn't help but see parallels to Barack Obama. Our new president has described himself as part of the Joshua Generation -- the African American leaders who have come after pioneers like John Lewis, Rev. Jesse Jackson and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Perhaps Kirsten Gillibrand is part of the Joshua Generation of women leaders, inspired by Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and so many others who blazed the trail Gillibrand is now following.

Then compare with Lawrence O’Donnell’s Huffington Post piece, where he raises questions about how Gillibrand’s political history actually meshes with Obama’s policy goals:

The accidental governor of New York ended his relentless daily display of incompetence in choosing a successor to Senator Hillary Clinton by offering this praise for his choice, Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand: "She also introduced legislation that would require that our federal budget be balanced annually.

Introducing "legislation that would require that our federal budget be balanced annually" is as childish as Congressional behavior can get. If Gillibrand had her way, Obama would have no tools to use to get us out of this recession/depression. Nor would we be able to continue paying soldiers in Iraq or buy the jet fuel to fly them home or enact any version of health care reform.

All the adults in Congress agree that we need a deficit-financed stimulus package--the Democrat v. Republican disagreements are only over the precise size and shape of the package. How long will it take Kirsten Gillibrand to grow up?

One thing is certain: at least one of these characterizations is complete spin! While it’s possible that the truth is somewhere in the middle, I think there are a couple of signs that one is on target and the other is complete BS.

One is what I’ll call the logic gap: Begala offers nothing to back up his assertions, except to say he's seen her impress both both city folks and cows (slight exaggeration!) In fact, Begala writes as if he’s filling out the word count around an opportunity to set forth how much Gillibrand admires Hillary Clinton. O’Donnell, on the other hand, makes a point that is consistent with nearly every credible economist and with observable economic facts.

The other is Begala’s history as a Clinton loyalist and operative, while O’Donnell’s history is one of a bold, controversial, and occasionally very prescient, truth-teller.

Although I was neutral throughout much of the drama surrounding Caroline Kennedy’s potential appointment, these two alternative views of Gillibrand have created the suspicion that Kennedy was attacked so viciously in the media because her appointment would somehow not be deferential enough to Hillary Clinton, and that Gillibrand is a very disappointing choice! (for additional reasons, see Al Giordano here)

And the Award For Most Shameless Advertising Campaign Goes to . . .

2009-01-28T17:35:00.000-08:00

Talk about misunderstanding the message!

If PepsiCo really wants President Barack Obama to Refresh Everything for the good of the country, I’m guessing they would rather not include a refreshing change to America’s food policy - one that would de-emphasize consumption of soda pop - as is recommended by noted authorities like Michael Pollan and many others. I really don’t think that part of the hope and change represented by Obama’s ascendance on the political scene really involves refreshing America’s preferred source of diabetes-producing, obesity serum from Coca Cola to Pepsi!

But then, perhaps I’m being a little too cynical about PepsiCo’s motives. If only the nine million plus who supported Barack Obama can resist the underwhelming temptation to associate his message of hope and reformative change with the consumption of Pepsi products; and can just sit back and sip their Perrier while watching the wingnuts fall all over themselves gorging on Coca Cola in protest of PepsiCo’s “leftist” leanings, perhaps the goal of moving the country toward a new, more productive and sustainable long-term future will come even faster and last longer, thanks to the negative health effects of PepsiCo’s new ad campaign!

Here’s Obama’s New Mantra Against GOP Sniping [Updated]

2009-01-26T18:45:00.000-08:00

Barack Obama set the tone perfectly when he responded to GOP criticism of his economic stimulus plan with the simple admonition, “I won!”

Paul Krugman apparently agrees, as he suggests that the response reflects the fact that the majority of Americans who elected Obama are no longer inclined to listen to the same old conservative arguments anymore.

In fact, Krugman considers their desperate attempts to stall Obama’s spending-based plan as a series of disingenuous “bad faith” cheap shots intended to fool the public into regressing into primal instincts cultivated over the last few decades of failed conservative supply side economics that began with Ronald Reagan.

Of course, the next step for Obama, assuming his initial conciliatory gestures toward bipartisanship are met with more whining and obstructionism, is to start beating the drum with polished regularity that November 5, 2008 was a crossroads moment when the country chose bold change and new ideas over stubbornly clinging to the failed ideas of the past.

He should create a clear choice for conservatives: Get on board and help make the new policies a success; or be seen, front and center, as relics of the past who are trying to barricade the door to progress for all of us and stifle the hope of a better future for our children and grandchildren.

The stampede has already started! The GOP can choose to run with the bulls and perhaps help achieve a euphoric, life changing, accomplishment. Or they can choose to stand in the way and be gored by a movement that Barack Obama understands is the reason he’s already won!

[Update] House GOP members vote 100% against the Economic Recovery Plan! Wow! The ship is sinking and these clowns unanimously agree that the best strategy is to keep clinging to the anchor!

Keeping the Powder Dry on the Public’s Tolerance for Pardons

2009-01-23T19:41:00.000-08:00

It’s interesting that Bush 43 seemed to be quite reluctant to issue a flood of pardons on his last few days in office, despite eight years of practically shoveling money to his friends and cronies. Dick Cheney even criticized Bush for a “miscarriage of justice” in not pardoning Scooter Libby.

The most obvious explanations for the lack of pardons are either he was too lazy to actually work on his last few days on the job; or as this post suggests, that he simply lacked empathy or the capacity to feel loyalty toward even those like Libby who sacrificed their own credibility (and careers) to protect him.

Personally, I think the reason may be that he heard the public call to hold him accountable for his own crimes, and President Obama’s seeming inclination to look beyond Bush’s actions toward “focusing on the future,” and he decided that if the public were to become oversaturated with his own outgoing pardons, they may be less likely to accept a call to “let bygones be bygones” when it comes to Bush himself.

Perhaps it’s a fitting miscalculation for a man who graced us with an eight year string of miscalculations!

President Obama’s Top Ten Supremely Subtle Inaugural Jabs at Conservative Ideology (and Bush!)

2009-01-21T16:23:00.000-08:00

Boy, does it feel good to have a president who is not just smart, but smart enough to point out the hypocrisy and outright failure of his political opposition without them even knowing what hit them! Al Giordano once referred to it as the Mack the Knife Technique and it was in full display during President Obama’s inaugural address. Looking over the transcript of the speech, here are the top ten sharp jabs I found (that Bush 43 undoubtedly just chuckled through), along with my own comments:

10. These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. (Perhaps the most subtle of all, this one served as a reminder of what’s been ignored for the last 8 years!)

9. On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord. (Take that, Karl Rove!)

8. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works. (AKA: Nobody cares what Grover Norquist thinks!)

7. As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. (And we reject those who have given us this choice, so take a hike!)

6. (Earlier generations) understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. (A bully always eventually gets his ass kicked!)

5. On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics. (GOP RIP!)

4. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government. (Nobody trusts Dick Cheney!)

3. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. (The hard choices of holding the greedy and irresponsible accountable, perhaps?)

2. (Our economy’s) power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control - and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. (Our economic crisis is due, almost entirely, to a GOP ideology of embracing negligence to allow looting by the “have mores”)

1. We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. (This is my favorite, because it says not only that Bush 43 and his supporters are children, but that further GOP obstructionism will be childish and untimely . . . and it says it to those who believe in Scripture!)

It was a thing of beauty, and a signal to the World, if not to oblivious Bush apologists, that President Barack Obama will be a force to be reckoned with for conservatives determined to attack him the way they attacked Bill Clinton!

Inauguration Day

2009-01-20T10:35:00.000-08:00

These images aren’t great because all I had was my phone, but they do capture the wonderful setting and the crowd at Civic Center Plaza in San Francisco. The scene took place right below my office window, where I am now back at my desk watching the lingering crowd slowly dispersing after Obama’s inspirational call to “put aside childish ways” and help America re-establish greatness through shared community and responsibility.

I’d like to comment on the few close-up shots of Bush 43 as he sat listening to Obama’s speech and the crowd reaction . . . but I guess that would be childish of me!

So I’ll just skip right to the pictures:

The sun rises over a perfect backdrop:

The crowd eager with anticipation:

The moment that Barack H. Obama becomes the 44th President of the United States:

Link to the full text of President Barack Obama's inaugural address.

The Colbert Report of its Era

2009-01-19T09:54:00.000-08:00

Back when I was in high school, the most innovative, cutting edge, television comedy on the dial was Fernwood 2Nite, which later became America 2Nite. Every day, my friends and I would come to school and rehash the previous night’s antics of phony talk show host Barth Gimble (played by Martin Mull) and his dumbass sidekick, Jerry Hubbard (played by Fred Willard).

While it wasn’t overtly political, like The Colbert Report, it mocked the cultural sensibilities of the times in much the same way that Stephen Colbert does today. It was smart, edgy, often politically incorrect, and absolutely hilarious! Just as Colbert pushes the envelope by combining TV comedy with modern technology and audience interaction, Fernwood blurred the lines between reality and fiction by combining real life guests and fictional characters interacting with the pompous, condescending Gimble and the stunningly dense windbag Hubbard.

Additionally, I’m reminded by this tribute by Steve Clemons, that Fernwood’s creator, Norman Lear, has long had a political sensibility that played a large role in developing the new progressive media that helped make shows like Stephen Colbert’s possible.

I had not thought about Fernwood for many ~~years~~ decades, when I heard that Mull and Willard were reuniting for a live reunion performance as a part of the San Francisco Sketchfest. Not about to miss out on the fun, I just got my tickets yesterday!

Thanks to the wonders of YouTube, I was able to find a couple of vintage clips that demonstrate what I’m talking about. Enjoy!

Gimble and Hubbard at their Finest:

Classic Interview with Tom Waits:

Sometimes Focusing on the Future Starts with Reparation [Updated]

2009-01-16T18:31:00.000-08:00

I’ve been thinking about the Obama team’s response whenever questions arise about holding the Bush Administration accountable for potential war crimes. Repeatedly, Obama’s response is always to point out the importance of “focusing on the future” and “looking forward not backward.”

This mantra was highlighted again recently when the top question voted up by citizens using Obama’s www.Change.gov website was the following:

Will you appoint a Special Prosecutor (ideally Patrick Fitzgerald) to independently investigate the gravest crimes of the Bush Administration, including torture and warrantless wiretapping?

The Obama team’s response was to point out that this question had already been addressed, and to refer to this previous comment by Joe Biden:

The questions of whether or not a criminal act has been committed or a very, very, very bad judgment has been engaged in is — is something the Justice Department decides,” Mr. Biden said, adding that he was not ruling prosecution in or out. “Barack Obama and I are — President-elect Obama and I are not sitting thinking about the past. We’re focusing on the future.

Obama himself was later asked the same question by George Stephanopoulos, and gave a similar answer:

We’re still evaluating how we’re going to approach the whole issue of interrogations, detentions, and so forth. And obviously we’re going to be looking at past practices and I don’t believe that anybody is above the law. On the other hand I also have a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.

But, as Arianna points out, looking forward and looking backward are not mutually exclusive! In fact, one of the widely accepted principals in making positive changes for the future is the act of making amends as a step toward repairing the damage caused by negative past behavior. Every variation of a twelve step program starts with recognition and understanding of the destructive behavior, and positive action to make things right. From Wikipedia:

As summarized by the American Psychological Association, the process involves the following:

• admitting that one cannot control one's addiction or compulsion;
• recognizing a greater power that can give strength;
• examining past errors with the help of a sponsor (experienced member);
• making amends for these errors;
• learning to live a new life with a new code of behavior;
• helping others that suffer from the same addictions or compulsions.

I’m all for the idea of turning the page on the bad behavior of our government officials. However, this does not mean we should sweep it under the rug and pretend it never happened. Part of the healing process necessary to look forward and focus on the future will come from examining exactly what happened, and demonstrating that our new code of behavior involves enforcing the laws, no matter who broke them and when.

[Update] Here's Jonathan Turley on Countdown, saying it even better:

When All We Had Was the Traditional Media . . .

2009-01-14T19:54:00.000-08:00

When all we had was the traditional media, we might have gotten a picture like this and the basic story around it, but we never would have had the opportunity to read commentary like this highly entertaining and insightful connection of military imagery among conservative bloggers, 24’s Jack Bauer, and Joe the Plumber. It almost makes me sympathetic, in a “feeling sorry for the lepers” sort of way, for what it must be like to be a conservative in America today.

The Idiot’s Guide to Chicken Soup for Dummies.

2009-01-11T09:06:00.000-08:00

Sometimes I hear a comment that is so ridiculously simple-minded and downright stupid that it leaves me slack jawed.

Here’s Sarah Palin, in an interview with a conservative filmmaker who has chosen “to devote his life to correcting the historical record” regarding criticism of Palin, explaining how she thinks the media would have treated her much differently – in fact, would have “loved her” - if she had just had the seemingly random good fortune of choosing to run as a Democrat rather than as a Republican!

Um, sure Sarah!

And I would have been treated much differently in my dream of playing in the NBA if I hadn’t had the random misfortune of choosing to be born a short, slow, white guy who can’t jump!

Sarah also chose to berate the media for treating Caroline Kennedy “with kid gloves,” while they were more critical of Palin during her campaign, suggesting that the difference highlighted “a class issue.”

Finally, Palin expresses an opinion that I can agree with! She has been criticized more than some other political figures - like Caroline Kennedy for example - because other political figures occasionally demonstrate that they have some class, while Palin repeatedly demonstrates that she doesn’t have any!

Panetta for CIA Chief a Victory for Intelligence Over Experience (in Intelligence)

2009-01-11T08:51:00.000-08:00

Now that’s what I’m talkin’ about!

With a bold stroke, Barack Obama validated much of the confidence I placed in him throughout the Democratic primary, as I became convinced that he was the candidate who could bring intelligence and basic human decency back to our government.

How do I know this? Two reasons: one personal, and the other, simply obvious. Let me start with the latter:

If the choice of Leon Panetta to head the CIA drew such a harsh, defensive, and petty initial reaction from my bad senator, Diane Feinstein (D-War Profiteering), then it has to be a good choice! Although she quickly changed her public tune after intense criticism and outright mockery of her response to the news, first impressions usually tell the real story much better than the political damage control that follows. Al Giordano provides the details as only he can, including a link to this article Panetta wrote for Washington Monthly that sets forth the values of the man that have been so lacking at CIA for as long as I can remember.

The personal reason comes from an experience I had with Panetta when he was a State Senator representing the Monterey area on the Central California Coast. Through my work, I had the misfortune of becoming embroiled in a dispute with one of Panetta’s constituents who was, quite literally, insane. She apparently was determined to air her ~~complaints~~ ~~demands~~ whatever the voices in her head told her to say through a series of letters to Panetta’s office.

Instead of throwing his weight around and demanding that I comply in order to get this constituent off of his back, Panetta wrote me a thoughtful letter asking me to provide my side of the story. Without going into the details, I’ll just say that Panetta not only considered my response carefully, he wrote back (or at least had a staffer write) to express appreciation for my handling of the situation. It was a small gesture, but one that seemed to me at the time to be coming from someone who cared about doing the right thing, in the right way.

More of this in government, please!

Three Alternative Theories on Sanjay Gupta

2009-01-08T20:31:00.000-08:00

Considering that Barack Obama has taken great pains to demonstrate his desire to return science to a position of respect and value in our government, I was pretty shocked to see that he was considering nominating Sanjay Gupta as Surgeon General.

Even putting aside criticism that Gupta has been a shill for the pharmaceutical industry, and that he knowingly used false data to attack Michael Moore regarding Sicko, I found the choice to be very strange simply for the fact that it seems so gimmicky to nominate a guy primarily known as a TV doctor!

Sanjay Gupta may be a highly qualified physician, just like Letterman’s Paul Schafer may be a highly trained musician (and I don’t really know about either), but the overall impression when you see both of them is that they are likable media creations who thrive more on attention than competence.

Selecting Gupta sends a message that appearance is more important than substance, because appearance is what he’s best known for. Selecting Gupta doesn’t fit with the type of competence-driven administration Obama has been methodically putting together. In fact, if I don my tin foil fedora, selecting Gupta almost seems like the kind of appointment Karl Rove might recommend to George Bush to cover up some insidious plot to allow cronies to profit from a health care crisis! It just doesn't make sense that Obama would nominate him.

So why all the talk of nominating Sanjay Gupta? Here are three potential theories (not mutually exclusive) that all seem more plausible to me than the thought that Obama really wants Sanjay Gupta to be his Surgeon General:

1. By putting out word that Gupta is under consideration, Obama can count on a media frenzy over the idea that “one of their own” will join the administration, which helps "turn the page" from the prior media frenzies over Rick Warren and over possible links between Obama and Rod Blagojovich.

2. By nominating Gupta and giving congressional dems someone relatively meaningless to reject, Obama can get full support on his more critical appointees without the appearance of a democratic version of the Bush rubber stamp Republicans.

3. Gupta was likely one of many potential nominees to be contacted, but because he is such an eager self-promoter, he quickly realized the PR value of being seen as Obama’s choice so he quickly used his insider status to spread the “news,” knowing that even if he doesn’t get it, he has a huge microphone with which to convince America that he was the one who rejected Obama.

All in all, I will be very, very surprised if Sanjay Gupta ends up being nominated.

Karl Rove: Bush Failed Because He Was Too Busy Reading!

2009-01-06T18:34:00.000-08:00

I like to read books. At any given time, I have a small stack of unread books that I hope to find time to begin. The one in progress sits for months near my bed, as the only time I can find to get through another chapter or two is on those occasional evenings when I’m able to retire before I’m completely exhausted and in need of immediate sleep.

You see, I also have a full-time job, and family obligations that take up much of my time. I also make a point of engaging in recreational outdoor activities (like bike riding), and home maintenance activities (like brush cutting in the yard). The only way I could possibly read one book per week would be if I limited my reading exclusively to volumes like those penned by Dr. Seuss, if I were to give up most of my other personal activities, or if I were to sneak in my reading when I should be doing my job!

Yet, in a column published by the WSJ, Karl Rove wants us to believe that George W. Bush is such a voracious reader that he tries to read one book per week, and has competed with Rove for years in trying to finish not just the largest number of books, but books with the most and biggest pages!

The president jumped to a slim early lead and remained ahead until March, when I moved decisively in front. The competition soon spun out of control. We kept track not just of books read, but also the number of pages and later the combined size of each book's pages -- its "Total Lateral Area."

According to Rove, these weren’t quickie children’s books. The contest started as they were both supposedly reading Doris Kearns Goodwin’s “Team of Rivals!” Now I’ve seen a copy of “Team of Rivals,” and I’ve heard Kearns Goodwin discuss it on numerous television shows. It has 944 pages! Frankly, I think Kearns Goodwin is capable of writing a sentence longer than the combined works of Dr. Seuss. If I were to try to read “Team of Rivals,” it would undoubtedly sit on my bedside table for many months, if not a year or more, before I finally got through it.

But Bush apparently finished it and went on to read another 94 books that same year, all while holding the important job of “leader of the free world” and being Commander in Chief during two wars.

By contrast, I’d have to take a two week vacation from my considerably less demanding job just to get through “Team of Rivals” at the consistent pace required to be competitive in a reading contest! And I don’t even come close to matching Rove’s description of Bush’s “extra credit” reading:

Each year, the president also read the Bible from cover to cover, along with a daily devotional.

So I guess this explains a lot! While he was president, Bush read, according to Rove, 95 books in 2006, 51 books in 2007, and 40 books in 2008 (plus his annual laps through the Bible!) Combine that with his regular bicycle rides and frequent brush cutting trips to Crawford, and perhaps it’s not surprising that during that time the economy went to hell, the countries’ infrastructure crumbled, and the Middle East became an even bigger disaster than before.

If Rove’s account is to be believed (and, of course, it's not!), then it seems pretty obvious that Bush was too busy reading, counting and measuring the pages of his books to do his damned job!

Worst Timed Marketing Campaign Ever!

2009-01-04T13:59:00.000-08:00

I took this shot of a billboard just outside my window in San Francisco. I’m guessing the person who thought up this marketing campaign didn’t have the current week’s news in mind. If the slogan, "Different From the Israel in the news," was the best idea to reach the drawing board during the planning sessions for the campaign, I couldn’t help but wonder what slogans they rejected.

Thanks to the wonders of the Google, I was able to track down them down so I can share them at Left-Over. So here are the four rejected slogans from the top five in the “Visit Israel” marketing campaign:

There was this:

Visit Israel: Not as many mortar blasts as you think!

and this:

Visit Israel: Like Beverly Hills, but with less rhinoplasty!

and this:

Visit Israel: Because you can’t vacation in a JC Penney catalog!

and, finally, this:

Visit Israel: Shlameel Shlamazel Hasenfeffer Incorporated!

I'll keep you posted on how long the billboard lasts!

To Quote George W. Bush, “Bring ‘Em On!”

2009-01-02T19:34:00.000-08:00

OK, so I have very little hope that Harry Reid will actually take my advice, but if the GOP leaders are really willing to filibuster any attempt to seat Al Franken on a provisional basis, while Norm Coleman tries to force the courts to overturn the results of the Minnesota recount, I say let them talk for days!

The Dems can even help them out by using a little of their filibuster time to remind everyone of the details of how Bush became president in the first place. At least in his case, Franken will have the credibility of a completed recount on his side!

They can rehash the details of the Brooks Brothers Riot, in which GOP staffers tried to force the process to a premature halt while Bush still had a dwindling lead in the never-to-be-finished recount in Florida.

They can also refresh our memories of the former arguments made by James Baker about how “endless legal wrangling” can “unduly prolong” the “orderly process of transition” after our elections.

Yeah, if John Cornyn and the rest of the GOP leaders want to filibuster, I say bring ‘em on!

How Do You Write a Book Telling a Story That You Don’t Recall?

2008-12-31T11:47:00.000-08:00

Anyone looking for a hint at the pathetic irrelevance that will likely characterize George W. Bush’s post-presidential life need look no further than Alberto Gonzales.

Gonzo, still apparently unable to find a job, now says he’s writing a book that will set the record straight about all those things he couldn’t recall during his testimony before Congress. Unfortunately, he still doesn’t seem to remember much, as he offered these gems (with my emphasis) during a recent interview:

What is it that I did that is so fundamentally wrong, that deserves this kind of response to my service?

and

. . . for some reason, I am portrayed as the one who is evil in formulating policies that people disagree with. I consider myself a casualty, one of the many casualties of the war on terror.

So I guess the book is going to include painstaking detail about how Gonzo had his “credibility” blown off by a roadside bomb? Too bad the Walter Reed Hospital couldn’t get the funding for that new “self esteem wing” they’ve been trying to build!

Of course, there’s also this:

Mr. Gonzales, 53 years old, doesn't have a publisher for his book. He said he is writing it if only "for my sons, so at least they know the story."

I guess it’s a little hard to find a publisher when you can’t demonstrate that you remember the story you are pitching to them.

Perhaps, after he’s finished documenting his recollection of the time he spent in the Bush Justice Department and is ready to lovingly present the book to his sons, he should go ahead and throw in a box of crayons!

Rule Number One

2008-12-29T16:12:00.000-08:00

When the primary topic of every interview about your presidency is whether it was a failure, then it was a failure!

When your wife goes on the most GOP friendly network, and is forced to disagree with critics calling your presidency the worst in history, then it was the worst in history!

When your "work wife" goes on CBS and tries to label as “ridiculous” those who question your presidency, while having to resort to lines like this:

"I think generations pretty soon are going to start to thank this president for what he's done. This generation will," (Condoleezza) Rice said.

. . . and this:

"One cannot yet judge the effects of decisions that this president has taken on what the Middle East will become," Rice said. "I mean, for goodness' sakes, good historians are still writing books about George Washington,"

. . . then it is your presidency that was ridiculous!

And by the way, is Condi aware of the extensive list of books that “good historians” are still writing about Jack the Ripper? A quick tally of the titles available on Amazon.com reaches over a hundred. Perhaps another couple hundred volumes and, for goodness’ sakes, generations succeeding the denizens of 19th Century London will start to thank Jack for what he did too!

Please Don’t Touch Anything!

2008-12-27T10:43:00.000-08:00

Seriously, is there anything anyone in the Bush Administration can touch that won’t shatter into a million pieces of disastrous failure?

A week ago, we heard this:

United Nations - U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said at a farewell U.N. appearance Monday that Israel and the Palestinians have moved much further along the path to peace since President George W. Bush brought their leaders together a year ago - though they won't clinch an agreement by the end of the year.

Today, this:

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip — Israeli warplanes retaliating for rocket fire from the Gaza Strip pounded dozens of security compounds across the Hamas-ruled territory in unprecedented waves of airstrikes Saturday, killing more than 200 people and wounding nearly 400 in the single bloodiest day of fighting in years.

Like the parent who leaves her child in the car while she runs into a china shop, lest he inadvertently knock over an entire shelf of fine porcelain, can we just sequester the entire Bush Administration for a month until the responsible, competent, adults are ready to take over?

The Decade of Him, Al Franken?

2008-12-25T20:06:00.000-08:00

As it begins to look more and more like Al Franken will take the Minnesota Senate seat now held by corrupt Norm Coleman, it’s pretty funny to see that some GOP groups are in a panic!

Here’s a wild suggestion that might take full advantage of the unique skills Franken possesses to give those panicked Republicans a valid justification for their fears:

With Evan Bayh talking about creating a group of “Blue Dog” democratic senators to give moderates a higher degree of clout, I’d like to see Franken become the catalyst for a similar coalition of progressive-minded senators.

Given a likely 59 seat majority for the Democrats, with a small group of Bayh’s Blue Dogs constantly threatening to side with the GOP to stop legislation not deemed corporate friendly enough, the rest of the Democrats not aligned with Bayh should simply threaten to band together and let Franken filibuster unless proposed legislation isn’t beneficial to working class Americans.

According to this report, there’s a record out there that Franken would be the perfect guy to topple:

South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond holds the record for the longest speech in the history of the Senate. During debate on the Civil Rights Act of 1957, he spoke for a total of twenty-four hours and eighteen minutes.

With the fear of a Franken filibuster (and we all know he could do it!), even the Blue Dogs will be cowering like a beaten puppy!

I’ll Bet Maria Shriver is Very Proud!

2008-12-23T13:24:00.000-08:00

Remember when Maria Shriver was inspired enough to publicly endorse Barack Obama during the primaries? She gave a rousing speech at a rally in Los Angeles, in which she described some of the qualities that she most admired about Obama:

“He’s not about himself,” she told a cheering crowd at UCLA’s Pauley Pavilion. “He’s about the power of us and what we can do if we come together… . He is about empowering women, African Americans, Latinos, older people, young people. He’s about empowering all of us.”

I’m guessing she might have a more difficult time finding a similar level of inspiration toward her husband, seeing as how he seems to be exclusively about himself, flaunting what little power he has as California’s governor to veto a budget deal that just might be the only way to save his state from financial ruin, and then babbling to Larry King about how he aspires to be President!

At one time, Shriver was inspired enough to compare Obama to what she saw as being the good in California:

“I thought, if Barack Obama was a state, he’d be California,” Shriver said as the crowd of thousands roared in a chorus that rose as she ticked off each attribute: “Diverse. Open. Smart. Independent. Bucks tradition. Innovative. Inspirational. Dreamer. Leader.”

Her husband, to the contrary, seems determined to do what he can to kill off as many of those qualities as possible, by using layoffs and furloughs to plunge California as deep into economic collapse as he can, without regard to anything but his deluded personal ambition.

Perhaps Brian Leubitz at Calitics describes it best:

Arnold got to talking about vetoing the Legislature's budget plan, and it immediately becomes clear what is going on here: The Shock Doctrine. The Republicans, including Governor Schwarzenegger, are using the budget disaster to destroy labor and environmental gains. At this point they don't even try to hide it: they are going after CEQA, going after labor contracts, and going after the generations old experience of public investment in infrastructure.

This is a stick-up, an attempt to drive us back into the third world of economic inequity, class warfare, and a grim future. Say goodbye to Pat Brown's California, say hello to Kurt Russell's.

Yes, Maria Shriver must be very proud!

The Forest Through the Fees!

2008-12-19T20:05:00.001-08:00

As the State of California races toward the edge of its financial cliff, the Governator won't sign the only viable budget reduction and revenue package available – saying at a press conference minutes after the bills passed the legislature -“ I won't be pressured” into signing them.

Arnold is not happy with the "economic stimulus" portion of the package aimed at creating jobs. So what does he do? He sets in motion his plan to furlough and lay off state workers to save cash. How exactly does laying people off create jobs or stimulate the economy?

This budget fix presented to the Governor is a huge Christmas gift to both him and his Republican colleagues in legislature - but they are all too stupid to realize it.

After months of futile negotiations the Democrats took the only path available to them, maneuvering and contorting a way to pass a constitutionally legal revenue and reduction plan on a majority only vote. It would allow the state some breathing room and maybe the ability to see a faint light at the end of this economic tunnel. Instead, because of his decision to veto the bills - its almost impossible to see the f%$#ing tunnel!

The Democrats did all the work, took all the risk and would have taken all the heat for raising "fees" to help balance the states finances. The Republicans did nothing! They were allowed to stay in their ideological – "no new taxes" corner, as they continue to worship at the bathtub of Grover Norquist.

If the Gov would just reluctantly sign these bills the Reeps could brag about how they stood up to the tax and spend liberals - as they drive home for the holidays on the highways and bridges built and maintained by the taxes that they despise.

If the Republicans could only see the forest through the “fees” they would realize that they won. The Governor got many of his economic stimulus wishes, the minority party got cuts to education and health and human services without putting up a single f*$#ing vote for new taxes. And Californians had a chance for this state to survive a disastrous economic downturn.

But alas, they are too blind to see their good fortune.

I do have one last hope, however. The bills have not been vetoed yet, having not been transmitted to the Governor’s office. I say hold them for a few more days until Arnold travels out of state for Christmas - Vail Colorado or wherever the hell he goes - then send the bills to the acting governor (Democrat Lt. Governor Garamendi) and have him sign them into law.

Will President Obama “Agree to Disagree” on War Crimes?

2008-12-18T18:00:00.000-08:00

There’s an interesting dynamic developing regarding the choice of Pastor Rick Warren to give the invocation at Obama’s inauguration. Critics, including many GLBT advocates, are saying that the choice of Warren, who has been an outspoken opponent of gay rights and was a leading voice for Proposition 8 in California (which made gay marriage unconstitutional), is a slap in the face to many of Obama’s strongest supporters and financial contributors.

Obama has defended the pick by stressing his own support for gay rights, and asserting the importance of “agreeing to disagree on certain social issues.” His transition team also released a set of talking points justifying the selection of Warren, based on other issues where Warren's views are in line with Obama's, such as AIDS and poverty.

Obama's defense prompted John Aravosis to point out the irony in the fact that Obama would most certainly not “agree to disagree” about racism, which would directly affect his own family, but is willing to do so on an issue affecting other families. Atrios, commenting on the political calculus of Obama’s position, describes it rather bluntly when he points out that, in today’s world, “anti-gay bigotry is very centrist!”

But here’s my (somewhat related) question:

Dick Cheney just came out and admitted on national television to supporting and authorizing torture, which we now know led to the death of numerous uncharged and untried “enemy combatants.” These are acts that are universally accepted under any historical definition as “war crimes,” and Cheney now openly admits to facilitating them.

In his effort to change to a more bipartisan, cooperative, tone in Washington, where does Barack Obama place torture and war crimes? Will his “centrist” focus lead him to look toward glossing over the use of these tactics by treating them as a “social issue” on which we can “agree to disagree?” Will those who speak out toward rationalizing past acts of torture be given a seat at the table, because they agree with the President on other issues?

Or will these tactics be condemned as harshly, and eventually punished as severely, as would open acts of racism that led to the unconscionable killing of other human beings?

Simply put, in an Obama Administration, will a history of supporting torture be treated as being more akin to a history of racism, or to “social disapproval” of homosexuality?

Stay tuned . . .

Maybe Soon Everyone Will Be Doing It (I Can Dream, Can’t I?)

2008-12-15T19:07:00.000-08:00

By now, I’m sure everyone has seen this clip, and a large majority of you probably laughed as heartily as I did when I saw it. I suppose it’s a little optimistic to hope that somehow this will catch on and become a commonplace reaction to Bush’s post-term efforts to travel the world promoting a falsely positive historical view of his presidency (a la Ronald Reagan).

Still, it does seem to have the makings of a global fad:

Thousands of Iraqis took to the streets Monday to demand the release of a reporter who threw his shoes at President George W. Bush, as Arabs across many parts of the Middle East hailed the journalist as a hero and praised his insult as a proper send-off to the unpopular U.S. president.

(snip)

Many users of the popular Internet networking site Facebook posted the video of the incident to their profile pages, showing al-Zeidi leap from his chair as Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki were about to shake hands Sunday and hurl his shoes at the president

Perhaps the viral symbolism might take a slightly less assaultive tone, like the Rude Pundit’s suggestion of sending old shoes to Dubya at the White House with an appropriately disdainful note attached, or maybe something like the outcry depicted in the movie, Wag the Dog, which led to a massive effort to use shoes as a reminder of something never to be forgotten:

Whatever happens, or even if nothing broader ever happens, thanks to Muntadhar al-Zaidi, the image of Bush ducking a flying shoe is the one that I’ll forever remember as the most appropriate response to him that I’ve seen in eight years.

In fact, I’m with Spencer Ackerman in noting:

I only regret that I will never get to throw my own shoes at this man.

And meanwhile, Andy Borowitz notes that al-Zaidi’s actions have likely earned him the honor of being tortured . . . by working for George Steinbrenner!

Wingnut Welfare For a “Bushie” Who Sucked?

2008-12-15T06:00:00.000-08:00

As our new President Elect names his foreign policy team, including Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, I can’t help think about what will become of our current Chief Dip(shit)lomat after the upcoming transition of power in the White House.

Condoleezza Rice has been one of the most inept members of one of the most inept administrations in history. She went from doing nothing during her stint as National Security Advisor (whose lack of advice led to the 9/11 attacks), to doing virtually nothing of significance after her promotion to Secretary of State. Sure, she got to add a couple more lofty titles to add to a fluffed up resume that already included being a world renowned expert in the former Soviet Union, a fluent Russian linguist, a concert level pianist, a football aficionado worthy of consideration to be Commissioner, a namesake for an aircraft carrier, and a fitness junky who makes Lance Armstrong look like a slacker.

For a while, her name was among those thrown around as potential GOP candidates for even higher political office, but she says she wants nothing more to do with Washington D.C.

I guess she must have something really important (sounding) lined up for her post-political life, right?

I thought it might be in the bag when I started hearing rumors that she was slotted to take over the helm of the San Francisco 49ers, but apparently that’s been shot down. Too bad, it would have been fun to watch!

The latest rumor has her returning to Stanford to continue a fellowship at the aptly-named Hoover Institution, where she can keep collecting a conservatively-sponsored paycheck while she plots out her next high profile, low performance “achievement” to add to the resume.

Those Who Would Let the “Fundamentals” of our Economy Starve!

2008-12-12T16:30:00.000-08:00

Remember during the campaign when John McCain made a big deal about how, when he said “the fundamentals of our economy are strong,” he was referring to “American workers?”

Funny how McCain’s prominent mug pops up in the montage above, courtesy of Jed at Dkos, showing the eighteen GOP Senators who voted for a $700 billion bailout of Wall Street, but against a $14 billion emergency loan package to save the “fundamentals” currently working in the auto industry!

McCain, who proudly campaigned under the banner of “Country First,” is now joined by these seventeen other job killing traitors who would let the American automobile industry die to spite its workers, while remaining all too willing to keep the spigots wide open when it comes to the flow of money from taxpayers to the financial jackals on Wall Street!

In another era, these guys might be marched by an angry crowd, wielding torches and pitchforks, to the guillotine. Today, they get to smile for the cameras and pretend they represent the best of their country, while allowing its “fundamentals” to deteriorate to the point of no return.

Somewhere in Hell, there should be an afterlife version of Guantanamo with empty cells waiting for such traitors to humanity!

Time for Obama to Beat (Back) the Press?

2008-12-11T20:32:00.000-08:00

When he was president, Bill Clinton was hounded by the press, as news reporters were eager to investigate any possible scandal they could twist and poke in order to manufacture public concern about Clinton.

Yet throughout nearly eight years of George W. Bush in the White House, the press willingly passed along whatever stupid talking points they were fed by a manipulative and blatantly scandalous administration, without blinking. In fact, it got so bad during the Bush years that an entirely new industry – citizen journalism - moved in to fill the void created by the suddenly compliant media, leading toward the path of possible demise for the entire newspaper industry.

Now that another Democrat is ready to take over the reigns of power, the press appears to be back in attack mode, as they seem willing to sidetrack the intended purpose of any press avail to drill into Obama’s possible connection to scandals like those involving Rod Blagojevich, and likely any future potential scandal they will be able to dredge up.

The signs are already popping up that the same tenacity and skepticism that was applied to Clinton’s every move will be applied to Obama. Never mind that few of these same reporters even cared that Bush was illegally wiretapping Americans, torturing “enemy combatants” without trial; or that he lied the country into a war that killed thousands of U.S. soldiers and probably hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

If this continues, it may become necessary for Obama to raise the same response that he used to shut down what he called the “phony outrage” of media criticism about his “lipstick on a pig” comment during the general election when he forcefully cried “Enough!”

If reporters in the press are going to repeatedly ignore Obama’s message in favor of picking at scandals, perhaps Obama should let them know that he could choose to use some of his political capital to draw attention to the scandals they deliberately ignored during the Bush administration!

Blagojevich Makes the Guinness Book for Corruption!

2008-12-09T18:29:00.000-08:00

Just when you start to think the GOP has cornered the market on slimeball politics, along comes Rod Blagojevich, setting what may end up being an unbreakable record for blatant arrogance and corrupt greed.

The list of charges includes one stunning revelation after another, but here’s one tidbit that I found particularly notable (my emphasis):

Throughout the intercepted conversations, Blagojevich also allegedly spent significant time weighing the option of appointing himself to the open Senate seat and expressed a variety of reasons for doing so, including: frustration at being "stuck" as governor; a belief that he will be able to obtain greater resources if he is indicted as a sitting Senator as opposed to a sitting governor; a desire to remake his image in consideration of a possible run for President in 2016; avoiding impeachment by the Illinois legislature; making corporate contacts that would be of value to him after leaving public office; facilitating his wife's employment as a lobbyist; and generating speaking fees should he decide to leave public office.

Blago may have been completely deluded about his chances of getting away with all kinds of disgustingly slimy and illegal behavior, but he’s been a pretty astute observer of at least one thing: If you are a member of the U.S. Senate, you can do pretty much anything and the rest of Senators are going to use their vast “resources” to cover your ass!

Is it any surprise that Blago would think of the Senate as a corrupt politician safe house, when you consider that they:

a) Didn’t expel Larry Craig after his “wide stance” trolling in an airport mens’ room?

b) Gave Ted Stevens a standing ovation after his conviction on seven felony corruption counts?

c) Rallied behind Joe Lieberman’s chairmanship of Homeland Security, even as many who voted for him did so with knives still protruding from their backs?

Fortunately, the decision was made to pull the plug on Blago before he had a chance to blend into the woodwork of “collegiality” in the Senate, which means, and I know I won’t be the only one singing it again this holiday season:

It’s beginning to look a lot like Fitzmas . . .

Note to the GOP: The disgust and derision you see coming from the Left toward Blagojevich? This is what it looks like when a party doesn’t cry “witch hunt” to distract attention from obvious corruption!

Look Who's Joining the Bailout Parade Now!

2008-12-07T08:58:00.000-08:00

OK, so I’ve finally come to terms with the idea of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State in an Obama Administration. It took a while, but I got there. I’m willing to trust that Barack Obama wouldn’t put her there just for political reasons, and that he has a plan to use her talents and abilities to bring about the changes he promised for the country’s foreign policy.

At the same time, I watching the CEOs from the Big 3 shucking and jiving as they beg the Congress for $34 billion of taxpayers’ money to bail them out from a long series of misguided and arrogant business decisions.

Now, I get an e-mail from Joe Biden that says this:

Our campaign pledged to help Senator Hillary Clinton -- one of the vital members of our team and our future Secretary of State -- retire her campaign debt. That's the money her campaign owes to the vendors across the country that make our political process possible.

Barack and I had the deepest respect for Hillary as an opponent on the campaign trail. Her undeniable intellect, talent, and passion strengthened Barack as a candidate and tested our movement for change.

We welcome Hillary as a partner in our administration, and I hope you will show your support by helping Barack fulfill our campaign promise

And I can’t help but think that Hillary and Bill Clinton are millionaires, much like the CEOs from the Big 3. Yet here they are, refusing to pay off their “vendors” (cough, Mark Penn, cough!); when, if Biden’s characterization is correct, it sounds as if those vendors may be among the many Americans losing their homes or their businesses from the current economic collapse. All while Hillary Clinton is waiting for a bailout from the small-dollar donors on Obama’s e-mail list!

Sorry Joe, but I’m not buying it! I supported the Obama-Biden campaign with a number of small donations because I wanted the change you were promising. I wanted the chance to have a president who would restore accountability to government, end torture and extraordinary rendition in our names, and pursue an economic agenda that would shift the emphasis from the super wealthy (like the Clintons) to the middle class (like, well, most of the people on the Obama-Biden donor list!)

I supported the Obama-Biden campaign because I wanted the chance to have a president who would bring an end to the war in Iraq and bring our troops home - preferably all of them, although there are some signs, including Hillary Clinton’s appointment as Secretary of State, that this isn’t actually part of the change you’re planning to deliver. Increasingly, it's looking like the plan may be to simply shift them over to another endless war in Afghanistan.

Sorry, but just because I donated to the Obama-Biden campaign doesn’t make me an ATM machine for any promise you made during the campaign, particularly before I see a return on the promises that got me to donate in the first place. Besides, from what I could tell from the primaries, much like the bumbling CEOs from The Big 3, Hillary Clinton’s campaign debts were largely accrued while she was trying to sell Hummers and it was clear that the American people wanted to buy a hybrid!

But I’m willing to be reasonable. I’m not opposed to considering a workable compromise. How about this one:

Hillary and Bill can use their own millions to pay off the vendors now. I’ll donate into a fund that can sit drawing interest until the day the last troops return from Iraq or Afghanistan. On that day, if it comes, the funds can be released to Hillary Clinton as reimbursement for her campaign debts. Everybody wins, and we will have helped Barack fulfill multiple campaign promises at the same time!

The Legacy Fluffers

2008-12-05T18:56:00.000-08:00

I guess it shouldn’t surprise anyone that the President who put Karl Rove in charge of overseeing the reconstruction after Katrina, or Karen Hughes in charge of improving our country’s image in the Muslim world, would put the two of them in charge of trying to “engorge” his presidential legacy.

On the surface, it seems pretty stupid – kind of like putting Jeffrey Dahmer in charge of promoting school nutrition programs, or putting Plaxico Burress in charge of gun safety!

But really, while critics complain about how Rove, Hughes and others are trying to rewrite history to improve George W. Bush’s legacy, I think it’s clear that what Bush is really doing is simply putting an exclamation point on his legacy.

After all, when he leaves office, Bush’s legacy is going to be that he is known forever as the president who put people like Karl Rove and Karen Hughes (and Don Rumsfeld, and Alberto Gonzales, and Mike Brown, and Condi Rice, and Hank Paulson) in charge of things!

Well, that and the results!

Prop 8: The Musical

2008-12-04T20:13:00.000-08:00

Here’s a great example of the hornet’s nest of creativity and passion that was stirred up by proponents of a ballot measure that, at first glance, threatens to send the U.S. down the path toward religious theocracy.

How much do you want to bet that if the vote were held today, Prop 8 would go down in defeat? Its passing was a minor skirmish won for the self-righteous, finger waggers behind it. But their “war” of public opinion over same-sex marriage, as a younger, less fearful, generation eventually takes over the reigns of power, will be resoundingly lost!

And probably even sooner because of efforts like Prop 8!

Dumbf**k Alert!

2008-12-03T19:32:00.000-08:00

Oh. My. God. What a buffoon! When asked by Charles Gibson about his greatest disappointment as president, Bush’s initial response?

That there were “no WMD’s in Iraq!”

He’s actually disappointed that Iraq didn’t have WMDs?

This is like saying, of his stint as governor of Texas, that after wrongly executing an accused murderer, his greatest disappointment was that the guy didn’t slaughter an entire family!

When asked about what he’s going to do after he leaves the White House, he said he’s going to “write a book” (perhaps using the same ghost writer as Joe the Plumber?) and “build an institute” (perhaps using the same contractor as Ted Stevens?) - both because he wants to be “out of the limelight.!”

Sorry George, but selling your hastily penned memoir at Walmart, or building the George Dubya Bush Vanity Institute, do not qualify as “staying out of the limelight!” Staying out of the limelight would be going back to Crawford to cut brush on the back forty, or moving your worldly possessions to a jungle in Paraguay to escape investigators from The Hague. Now that would be staying out of the limelight!

Fortunately for all of us, however, on the day he walks out of the White House, there will probably be exactly zero people who truly desire to keep George W. Bush in the limelight. At this point, even the 26 percent who still approved of him at the end of his presidency have now moved on to their new shiny object of misguided, dead-end affection - Sarah Palin!

On the day he leaves office, Bush will be yesterday’s newspaper . . . which is quite a fall considering that even today’s newspaper is actually yesterday’s Internet!

Obama’s Cabinet: Building a Bridge to Somewhere!

2008-12-02T18:41:00.000-08:00

Instead of complaining about the prevalence of “center right” appointees in Barack Obama’s cabinet, as many on the left seem eager to do, let’s look at it from a different perspective. If you want to change the country by moving it to the left, what’s the best way to actually do it?

America has been a country divided roughly down the middle, so stalemate has been the order of the day whenever a slight Democratic majority tried to accomplish anything substantial. So perhaps the best way for Obama to change the dynamic is to turn to his right and look for those whom he can persuade to adopt his vision.

While he could easily find many to his left willing to take up the cause (as is often recommended by his critics), it will be the allies Obama enlists from his ideological right who can then turn to their right and use their credibility and influence to pull even more allies to share the vision. Allies from Obama’s left won’t be able to do nearly as much to help him expand the coalition for change, so the decision to add Clinton, Jones, Holder, retain Gates, and possibly even to appease Lieberman, may serve to help much more than they hurt his chances of accomplishing his goals.

Think of it as a large tug of war where the rope has been evenly manned by liberals and conservatives and the line of “battle” has been right near the center. Under this scenario, the most conservative loonies at the far right end of the rope are as likely as anyone to be the ones moving it to the right, or at least preventing change toward the left. Factor in the unfortunate reality that some on the left are a bit weak, and you can see how, for the last eight years (and arguably even longer), “change” has only moved to the right!

But just move the line of battle a little to the right by picking up support from some allies from that direction, and then use them as a bridge to pick up a few more allies from their right, and suddenly the dynamic has changed completely. With just a few more supporters on your side of the rope, the far right wingnuts become irrelevant and marginalized because they can’t change the direction of momentum anymore.

And unlike the Bill Clinton era, when the goal was seemingly to pull everyone toward the center, Obama’s goal could still be to move the country in a leftward direction, hopefully in a way that will generate some clear initial successes and perhaps build even more momentum and support from a country that spoke loud and clear in favor of that kind of change.

And it all starts from looking to the right and finding allies who can be a bridge to those even further to the right!

Not So Deep Thought

2008-12-01T19:56:00.000-08:00

If the oil companies can now afford to sell gas to an SUV addicted country for $1.90 a gallon, why can’t they use the profits made when they were selling it for $4.50 a gallon to bail out the auto industry?

Top Ten List - Bush Accomplishments

2008-11-29T18:08:00.000-08:00

As George W. Bush winds down the last 53 days of his presidency, it seems he’s desperately trying to come up with a positive legacy for which he can be remembered. With 9/11, Iraq, Katrina, and a failed economy among the long list of disasters that occurred on his watch, it’s a tough task. So far, the best he and his supporters seem to be able to come up with is the assertion that he “prevented” any additional terrorist attacks on American soil.

In the spirit of holiday giving, I’m going to help Bush out and give him some additional ideas that he can claim as successes during his presidency, as I present the Top Ten Bush Accomplishments (Besides Preventing Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil Since 9/11):

10. Kept the U.S. Economy from completely collapsing during the last month since it completely collapsed.

9. Effectively prevented the rapid spread of teen vampirism.

8. Not one meteor landed in a major American city.

7. Headed off virtually all instances of baby abduction by Sasquatch.

6. Cleared out the nation’s vast oversupply of flag draped coffins.

5. Maintained America’s extensive system of gravity.

4. Created thousands of government jobs left undone.

3. Kept the time running on time.

2. Made great strides in promoting the idea that even special-needs children can grow up to be President.

And the top Bush Accomplishment (Besides Preventing Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil Since 9/11):

1. United the world with the majority of Americans in counting down the days until Obama’s inauguration.

Obama Recession, Huh?

2008-11-26T14:41:00.000-08:00

Remember when Rush Limbaugh said this:

The Obama recession is in full swing, ladies and gentlemen," Limbaugh told his radio audience of 15 million to 20 million on Thursday. "Stocks are dying, which is a precursor of things to come. This is an Obama recession. Might turn into a depression.

Here is what happened during the four market days since Barack Obama started taking a public leadership role on the economy by rolling out his economic team and discussing his plans:

(click to enlarge)

And here is what happened during the previous fourteen months . . .

(click to enlarge)

. . . when the markets had only this guy to look to for leadership on the economy!

(surely, you don’t want to enlarge)

These gains may not last, because there is certainly plenty of potential bad news out there. And they may not have anything to do with Obama’s recent visibility on the economy, because markets are fickle and sometimes behave irrationally. However, the likelihood that any part of the long decline over the past year is related to the market’s reaction to Obama’s leadership . . . is roughly proportional to Rush Limbaugh’s peanut-sized brain!

Enough About the Bush Tax Cuts, Let’s Make This Permanent!

2008-11-25T21:36:00.000-08:00

I’m not quite sure who this treatment is going to benefit the most: Ann Coulter, whose broken jaw is apparently wired shut, or the rest of us! Perhaps we should, on a prophylactic basis, provide the same treatment to O’Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.

Not So Deep Thought

2008-11-24T22:15:00.000-08:00

From the perspective of the children who are the future of the country, aren't all parents too big to let fail?

You Don’t Get “Change” Unless You Hit the Shot!

2008-11-23T19:22:00.000-08:00

For those unfamiliar with the title reference, it’s the practice of returning a basketball to the shooter (change) after he or she makes a shot during warm-ups. In light of Barack Obama’s predilection for hoops, I bring this up now, and I’ll return to it in a moment.

First, I’ll point to Jane Hamsher’s post, which presents the optimistic view of the idea I want to discuss. She points out that, despite a lack of progressive voices among the team Obama is putting together, if he is able to work with them to deliver the things he promised during his campaign (health care reform, alternative energy programs, troops out of Iraq, closing Gitmo, etc.), even progressives should be happy!

Next, I’ll admit right up front that I understand Barack Obama is many times smarter than I am, and has a much better temperament for the job of Potus. His choices during the long presidential campaign have proven, again and again, to be brilliant and forward thinking, so I am hardly in the position to legitimately criticize anything he does.

At the same time, after watching his tacit enabling of Joe Lieberman’s ability to work against change with no significant consequence; and now his seemingly imminent selection of the relatively conservative and hawkish Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, I find my sense of the Obama “honeymoon period” starting to wane.

Immediately after his election, I was mentally prepared to stick with Obama, despite any setbacks, throughout a long slow march toward change. Now, with these latest moves, I can’t help but notice an attitudinal shift where I find myself thinking:

“OK smart guy, it’s time to put up or shut up! Show me you’ve got game, or quit with the “trash talk” about bringing change!”

Frankly, as hard as we all worked to elect Obama as president, I’m thinking that it will be particularly disconcerting if we end up having to spend his entire first term seeing Joe Lieberman be one of the only beneficiaries of an administration that Lieberman fought his hardest to keep out of office!

Frankly, it will be upsetting if the people who donated to Obama, made calls, and knocked on doors for him, don’t see a return; while Hillary Clinton, who tried to cast him as a Muslim terrorist and an “empty suit” during the primaries, gets to pad her foreign policy credentials for a future presidential run in 2016.

Frankly, if this is all that change ends up looking like, I’m not sure I’m down with it!

On the other hand, I guess it really comes down to whether Obama can back up the confidence he shows when he enables a former foe like Lieberman to head the committee that can hound him during his efforts to change our approach to national security, or when he chooses a former foe like Clinton to be the face of his administration throughout the world.

Returning to the basketball analogy, it feels as if Obama just called “glass” right before he takes the most important shot in the history of our country.

If he makes it, he gets "change" and everyone is happy!

If he misses it, he looks like he blew the shot for the whole team, just because he was cocky!

Will Obama’s Foreign Policy Team Believe in Change (Or Is It Just Us?)

2008-11-21T19:45:00.000-08:00

Ayayayayayayaaaaaaaay!

With Hillary Clinton supposedly ready to accept a Secretary of State post that carries the customary practice of bringing along one’s own set of advisors, I’m really starting to wonder about the veracity of Barack Obama’s "change" mantra, at least when it comes to foreign policy!

During the primary and general election campaigns, I really hoped that Obama would end up surrounding himself with people who embraced the new vision best captured in this excerpt from a memo issued by early Obama advisor, Samantha Power, ironically in response to attacks from Clinton:

American foreign policy is broken. It has been broken by people who supported the Iraq War, opposed talking to our adversaries, failed to finish the job with al Qaeda, and alienated the world with our belligerence. Yet conventional wisdom holds that people whose experience includes taking these positions are held up as examples of what America needs in times of trouble.

Barack Obama says we have to turn the page. We cannot afford any more of this kind of bankrupt conventional wisdom. He has laid out a foreign policy that is bold, clear, principled, and tailored for the 21st century. End a war we should never have fought, concentrate our resources against terrorists who threaten America. End the counter-productive policy of lumping together our adversaries and avoiding talking to our foes. End the era of politics that is all sound-bites and no substance, and offer the American people the change that they need.

Barack Obama’s judgment is right. It is conventional wisdom that has to change.

In this article, Spencer Ackerman details the paradox of expecting Clinton to be the one to facilitate foreign policy change that is “tailored for the 21st century;” and here Jeremy Scahill runs down a list of 20 former clintonites and neocons who are rumored to be in line to fill out many of the positions in Obama’s foreign policy team.

Disturbingly, while Obama may follow through on his campaign promise to get us out of Iraq, it appears there are going to be quite a few voices telling him that indefinite military action (in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere) is the only viable option, while he may have nobody around who is inclined to offer an opposing viewpoint.

In fact, it seems that Obama is pretty much surrounding himself entirely with advisors who are firmly rooted in the centrist 1990’s. As Christopher Hayes points out here, there doesn’t appear to be a progressive voice in the bunch!

Since progressives were among Obama’s biggest supporters, having perhaps the greatest stake in the power of “believing in change,” I’m starting to understand what the religious fundamentalists would have felt like, if they didn’t just rely on their pastors to tell them how to feel, when the GOP shrugged them off immediately following election after election!

At this point, we can only hope that Obama himself is prepared to be the progressive "page-turning" counterbalance to everyone else in his foreign policy team!

Bush’s Real Legacy: The President Who Killed Capitalism!

2008-11-19T19:52:00.000-08:00

Its funny how we’ve gone years thinking that George W. Bush would go down in history as being remembered for lying us into an unnecessary war in Iraq, and botching the government’s reaction to Katrina. But when it’s all said and done, he’s really more likely to be remembered as the president whose philosophy of unregulated free markets and thoroughly politicized but impotent government proved that unfettered capitalism leads to nothing but an economic “Lord of the Flies” that is unsustainable.

Left to Bush’s economic “survival of the fittest” ideas, wealth will naturally flow toward a small number of the most greedy, unethical, soulless bastards in the country. And yet, what we inevitably end up with is a situation where nearly everything is run by a small number of mega-corporations that are “too big to be allowed to fail!”

This, of course, leads to the forced “socialization” of these corporations by taxpayers, overseen by a government with absolutely no competence in managing such things!

My expectation is that in the A.B. Era (that’s After Bush), U.S. Governments will have no choice but to take a more socialistic approach to managing the economy and regulating commerce, with a view toward what is best for society as a whole rather than what is best for the greediest, most cut-throat members of society.

It took a long time to find a president so inept that he could, almost single-handedly, blow up the glorified image of what is known around the World as “American-Style Capitalism,” but George W. Bush proved that this was the one task he was up to accomplishing during his presidency.

And that will be his real legacy!

Obama’s Lieberman Problem Won’t Go Away So Easily (For Me Anyway!)

2008-11-18T19:52:00.000-08:00

In his speech on election night, Barack Obama made it clear that change has not come just because we elected him to be our President. Only with hard work and sacrifice, he said, do we have to opportunity to create the change we seek!

I agree with that sentiment and I want to do my part to help. Really, I do! But I have a problem that makes it very difficult to focus my energy and enthusiasm toward the work of creating change.

His name is Joe Lieberman!

You see, after watching Lieberman campaign for John McCain, cheerlead for the opposing team at the GOP Convention, and essentially trash the patriotism of Barack Obama and me for supporting him, I can't forget about Lieberman. As long as Lieberman holds a plum committee chairmanship based on “seniority” in a party to which he doesn’t even belong, I can't stop thinking about what it would take to be rid of him.

I can’t stop thinking that today’s efforts to protect him from the consequences of his decision to campaign against change, are the exact opposite of the accountability I’ve been craving for the last eight years.

Clearly, I’m not the only one!

I understand that Obama wanted to avoid a messy intra-party fight in his first month as President Elect. I understand how Obama would want Lieberman to remain in the caucus as a sign of his desire to heal partisan divisions. I understand that the Senate acted today based on their understanding of what Obama wanted to happen.

However, at this point, I can’t help but view Lieberman like a large splinter in my thumb that is a bit infected and too painful to ignore. Before I'm truly ready to start the hard work of creating change, I may need to extract the splinter!

I can try to ignore it. It's not a life threatening problem, and I know it will probably work itself out if I could just put it out of my mind. But it keeps grabbing my attention and diverting my ability to focus on the work ahead. As long as it's there, nagging me, I’m afraid I won’t be able to use my hands for anything more productive than finding a way to remove the splinter!

Similarly, as long as the splinter of Joe Lieberman is heading the Homeland Security Committee as a senior member of the Democratic Caucus, whatever time and money I have to devote to politics is going to be irresistibly drawn toward finding a way to remove him, even if it takes until 2012 to do it!

This probably means that President Obama is going to have to run for re-election in four years without the benefit of my occasional $50 to $100 donations. Those will more likely end up going to whoever decides to run for the Connecticut Senate seat as an actual Democrat!

I’m sorry if I’m not quite ready to turn the page and start the hard work of changing our country and our politics. Despite my best intentions and a strong desire to extend my enthusiastic support from the campaign into Obama’s first term, I'm afraid that today’s vote means that I’m going to have to spend much of the next four years dealing with the somewhat painful and irritating distraction that is Joe Lieberman!

If I Were a Conspiracy Theorist . . .

2008-11-17T19:48:00.000-08:00

After an Obama campaign that was fanatically tight-lipped about leaking anything, there seems to be a whole lot of leaking going on regarding Hillary as a possible Secretary of State appointment.

If I didn’t think Obama was such an ethical, non-manipulative guy, I’d be wondering if the deal Hillary made to get her and Bill to enthusiastically endorse Obama, was that she would be made Secretary of State in such a way as to “launder” Bill’s questionable business dealings.

It would be so simple:

Step 1: Leak that Hillary was offered the job.
Step 2: Leak that she might not get the job because of problems in vetting Bill.
Step 3: Leak that aides think Bill shouldn’t be a problem.
Step 4: Hillary gets the job.

The Real Payoff: In the eyes of the public, Bill’s business dealings must be completely above board because “even Obama’s team was satisfied with the vetting process!”

I guess it’s a good thing I’m not a conspiracy theorist!

Is Hillary Working the “Enemies List” Against Kerry and Richardson?

2008-11-15T17:46:00.000-08:00

Here’s a fascinating assessment by Al Giordano about the surprise leak of Hillary Clinton as Obama’s potential choice as Secretary of State, first reported by Andrea Mitchell on Countdown.

Giordano suggests the media are being played like drums by the Clinton people in an effort to undercut leading contenders, John Kerry and Bill Richardson, as payback for endorsing Obama in the primary.

The piece led to a bit of a firestorm at DKos, and even prompted a rebuttal of sorts from Keith Olbermann, who pointed to a Huffpo column indicating that Obama has offered the post to Clinton, leading to an updated response from Giordano expressing continued skepticism. (It even led to a post by Congressman Steve Cohen (D-Tenn), an Obama supporter and one of my favorite legislators in all of D.C., to suggest that this may be a sign of Obama’s Lincolnesque qualities!)

It’s all quite interesting. Although I generally respect Keith and tend to trust his instincts on most things, I’ve got to lean toward Al’s view on this one, because I can’t reconcile the following question:

Why would “anonymous Democratic sources” be pushing Hillary as a potential selection who has been offered the job, while simultaneously leaking all of the many reasons she might not want to take it?

I understand that Obama may be enamored with the “team of rivals” concept, and he seems to have the diplomatic and persuasion skills to pull it off. However, this doesn’t add up to me. It looks, as Al notes in his original piece, more like a way to make sure the eventual selection looks “like sloppy seconds!”

Frankly, I’m kind of hoping that Obama puts it all to rest by either persuading Hillary to take the job (if he actually offered it to her), or announcing that the person who eventually gets the job was his first choice (if he didn’t).

Sanders Really Gets It, Channels Seenos!

2008-11-14T15:40:00.000-08:00

Zing! Looks like somebody’s been readin’ some Left-Over!

Here’s Senator Bernie Sanders seconding his fellow Vermonter, Pat Leahy, on Lieberman.

To reward Senator Lieberman with a major committee chairmanship would be a slap in the face of millions of Americans who worked tirelessly for Barack Obama and who want to see real change in our country . . . Appointing someone to a major post who led the opposition to everything we are fighting for is not “change we can believe in.”

Jeez, after the passage of Prop 8 exposed the hidden underbelly of California bigotry, I’m thinkin’ it might be time to consider moving to Vermont!

Leahy Gets It!

2008-11-14T11:34:00.000-08:00

Senator Pat Leahy of Vermont becomes the first Senator to publicly state opposition to Joe Lieberman retaining his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee.

I can only assume - since Lieberman has yet to apologize to the 66 million Americans who voted for the change represented by an Obama presidency, while Lieberman fought hard to prevent that change by spreading lies about Obama - that Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana (whose electoral votes went for Obama) will be with Sen. Leahy in voting to strip Lieberman of his chairmanship!

The Senate Dems Forgive Joe Lieberman at Their Own (and President Obama’s) Peril!

2008-11-12T19:48:00.000-08:00

Throughout the primaries and the general election, Barack Obama liked to say that the supporters who donated money or volunteered time “owned a piece of his campaign.” Many of those supporters bought in, in large part, because of a hunger for change that would return accountability to those who serve in our government.

In choosing to support John McCain and publicly attack Obama for his patriotism and readiness to lead, Joe Lieberman wasn’t just, as he would have us believe, “following his principles and doing what he thought was right.” Lieberman was actively working against each and every one of those people who skipped lunches so they could send a few bucks to the Obama campaign, or who gave up their weekends to make calls or knock on doors.

But Harry Reid has pointed out that Lieberman votes with the Democrats 90 percent of the time, and there are some indications that Obama himself is signaling that he wants Lieberman to remain as Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee.

Besides the glaring question about keeping Lieberman as the chairman of the committee dealing with the 10 percent of issues where he never votes with the Democrats, what kind of message would it send to those who sacrificed their hard earned money and time fighting to put a Democrat back in the White House, if one of the first official acts they see from a strengthened Democratic majority is to ensure that Joe Lieberman, who openly tried to stop the change they were fighting for, does not have to sacrifice anything?

Accountability? I guess we can cross one overly idealistic hope off the list!

Emily Dickinson once wrote that “Hope is the thing with feathers.” At this point, hoping for accountability for the choices made by Joe Lieberman just might end up being the “thing” that leads an entire “flock” of hopes, inspired by the historic Obama campaign, to suddenly fly off into the sunset!

Lemme Tell Ya a Little Story ‘Bout a Woman Named Sarah . . .

2008-11-10T20:12:00.000-08:00

“Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast”

(leaked from a high ranking official in the McCain campaign)

It wasn’t too long ago that Sarah Palin was still on the campaign trail, rejecting accusations that she was using the RNC credit card to stock her wardrobe and sneak in a little back-to-school shopping for the kids, with the claim that “the clothes were going to charity.”

So how is it that even her own father admits that she spent the weekend in Wasilla sorting through her clothes, trying to figure out what she accidentally brought home with her?

Palin’s father, Chuck Heath, said his daughter spent the day Saturday trying to figure out what belongs to the RNC. “She was just frantically . . . trying to sort stuff out,” Heath said. “That’s the problem, you know, the kids lose underwear, and everything has to be accounted for.”

So if it’s all on the up and up, then what’s with the frantic sorting? Apparently, RNC lawyers are now involved, “working with” Palin, presumably to make sure that she doesn’t swipe so much as a pair of underwear for Trig. I’m guessing they probably won’t stop until they find Piper’s Louis Vuitton handbag wrapped in saran wrap and a moose carcass and buried in the yard!

Not sure the Palins are endearingly funny enough for a “Wasilla Hillbillies” sitcom, but I think their story has potential for a new TV crime drama:

CSI Wasilla: Palin Clothes Detectives

Obama Sets the Stage for Governing

2008-11-09T09:41:00.000-08:00

One of the great things that Barack Obama accomplished during his campaign, with increasing determination toward the latter stages, was to talk about the need for Democrats, Republicans and Independents to work together in order to address the serious problems facing the country. In a way, he has made cooperation and the affirmative act of trying to understand opposing viewpoints and work through them to find common goals into a seemingly patriotic act.

While he’s inspired voters to consider the possibility of personal sacrifice and hard work as their contribution to bringing about change, he has also begun to create an environment where it will be virtually impossible for a Republican minority to take an obstructionist stance toward moving forward with the policies Obama hopes to pursue.

Even if the Democrats don’t end up with a filibuster proof majority in the Senate (and they still have a remote chance pending the results of a runoff in Georgia, a recount in Minnesota and, well, some sort of finding that Alaska Republicans are just too corrupt to participate in government), it will be very difficult for Republicans in Congress to continue the belligerent tactics often promoted by Mitch McConnell in the Senate and John Boehner in the House.

In an Obama Administration with a broad mandate and enthusiastic voter commitment and support, any Republican who appears to be dragging down America’s efforts to bring about the change it seems so hungry for, will be an immediate target to be ousted at the first opportunity, even in some of the more reliably conservative areas of the country.

And that backstabbing Joe Lieberman, whose ass has been kissed by Democratic leadership for far too long in an effort to keep him in the caucus and hold a majority, should be unceremoniously dumped. It doesn't matter whether he's in the caucus or not. He is now irrelevant, since even admitted Republicans will have to support Obama’s policies, at least grudgingly, in order to avoid looking like turds in the punchbowl!

Think about it this way: If the unpopular George Bush could use the presidential soapbox to shame Democrats into accepting policies that allowed torture and warrantless wiretapping by questioning their patriotism, just think what Obama will be able to do to Republicans who fight his policies, when those policies are sure to respect the constitution and seek to benefit all Americans!

More Thoughts on the California Ballot Measures

2008-11-07T09:22:00.000-08:00

I’m always puzzled by the collective stupidity of Californians when it comes to ballot measures. In addition to the despicable passage of a constitutional ban on gay marriage (Prop 8), which I addressed in a previous post, here are a few other observations on the results:

The largest margin of victory came when 63.2% voted in favor of improved standards for confining farm animals (Prop 2). Yet the same population essentially voted 60.0% against "improved" standards for confining nonviolent drug offenders - by denying treatment as an alternative to prison (Prop 5). Question: Would Californians vote to tolerate non-violent drug use by farm animals, if it were shown to improve their living standards during confinement?

Californians voted 53.5% in favor of increased rights for crime victims (Prop 9), yet the largest margin of defeat came when 69.3% voted against increased funding for law enforcement (Prop 6). I guess they figure we might as well have as many victims as possible to take advantage of their newly won rights!

And finally, Californians rightly rejected a requirement for parental notification for teen abortions (Prop 4). However, the same population - which includes all of the religious zealots who lead the fight against both reproductive rights and gay rights - voted to ban gay marriage (Prop 8). Question: How about if we just allow gay marriage but don’t notify the religious zealots that it’s happening?

For Many Californians, Gay is the New Black . . . and Churches are the New Plantations!

2008-11-05T19:57:00.000-08:00

There are surely a lot of Californians today who are viewing themselves as being oh so “sophisticated” and “forward thinking” because they were “open-minded” enough to cast their presidential ballot for an African-American candidate. They see themselves as being a vibrant part of the 21st century, standing on the winning side of an historic election that will change America.

And yet many of these same people voted for a constitutional amendment to remove rights of gays and lesbians by creating a permanent barrier that keeps the scary homosexuals at a second class status when it comes to the legal rights of marriage.

In contrast to the electoral map above showing the breakdown of counties with dark green for and light green against Proposition 8, here’s the equivalent map of counties supporting Obama and McCain. To the extent that these maps aren’t identically divided, we can basically identify pockets of bigotry disguised as enlightenment.

It is completely shameful that anyone would take pride in having helped elect Barack Obama, while at the same time helping to institutionalize discrimination that harkens back to the era of segregation!

If Proposition 8 holds up to legal challenges, which is far from certain, it will be extremely difficult to undo in a state that requires a two-thirds congressional majority for legislative constitutional amendments, and where gridlock is virtually ensured by the current districting practices.

However, I’m with Kos on the idea that the best way to respond to this odious proposition is to eliminate “marriage” as a legal construct altogether, and make all couples opt for a “civil union” in order to gain rights afforded by the state.

Then, we can let “marriage” be absolutely and completely between a couple and their God! Or their cult leader, or an ex-hippy circus clown, or their favorite mime, or whatever!

YES WE DID!

2008-11-04T19:14:00.000-08:00

And it ain't even close....also....you betcha!

Congratulations to President Elect Barack Obama - but most of all congratulations to the citizen's of this great country!

Here's a little theme song for the evening

Barack 2012!

[Update by seenos] Here's my pick for quote of the night: GOP strategist Mike Murphy, shortly before Barack Obama officially clinched the presidency, on why he thinks it's over for McCain:

I've been doing some back of the napkin calculations in the back room with Dr. Smirnoff!

As for Ms. seenos and me, we're celebrating with Dr. Korbel!

This One Voted for That One!

2008-11-04T10:03:00.001-08:00

Just Faces in the Crowd

2008-11-03T07:41:00.000-08:00

Somehow, this shot captures the gravity of the historical moment that Barack Obama, and in fact, all of America (well, most of America) are right on the verge of achieving.

I love the way the people in the background are looking right past Bruce Springsteen and his wife, Patti Scailfa, as they all listen to Obama speak. Just a bunch of ordinary citizens who are hopeful and proud of their country!

Contrast this with McCain’s rallies, where even the people he buses in to give the impression of enthusiastic support welcome the distraction of getting an autograph from Joe the Plumber!

It Takes Some Talent to Get People to Laugh at a Train Wreck!

2008-11-01T14:15:00.000-07:00

Oh my!

This has got to be the funniest thing I’ve ever heard, but kind of horrifying at the same time.

My first thought was that there’s no way Sarah Palin can admit that it was really her taking the phone call. But, sure enough, her campaign spokesperson just released a quick statement:

"Gov. Palin received a phone call on Saturday from a French Canadian talk show host claiming to be French President Nicholas Sarkozy," emailed spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt. "Gov. Palin was mildly amused to learn that she had joined the ranks of heads of state, including President Sarkozy, and other celebrities in being targeted by these pranksters. C'est la vie."

They actually think that they can spin this to show how much she has in common with other heads of state? Really?

How long do you think it’s taken anyone else, much less other heads of state like Jacques Chirac and Nicolas Sarkozy, to figure out they were being pranked by these guys? I must have counted a dozen lines that would have tipped me off, and that's if I ignored the silly french accent that sounded about as authentic as this guy's:

Stunning and side splitting all at the same time!

[Update 11:30 PM] I'm actually kind of surprised at the way the media has chosen to cover this. It seems they are pretty willing to cut Palin a lot of slack because she seemed good natured about the whole thing. And that would be fine, if she seemed like she was just going along with the joke! But there were several times when it was beyond obvious that it was, in fact, a joke - and Sarah was still trying to make serious (talking) points! It was blatantly clear that she was completely unaware of what was going on, right up until the time they told her it was a prank; and even then, she just blathered something about wanting to know the call letters from the pranksters' radio station, as if she thought that might be a passably intelligent thing to say in the immediate situation!

This woman is running to be second in succession for the most important job in the country, and she seems incapable of processing basic information! Instead, she instinctively tries to fake her way through any situation by stringing together words that sound as if they might be coming from a thinking, coherent person. It's really quite amazing that she's gotten any further than her limited success as a beauty pageant contestant!

Methinks the Wingnuts are a Bit on Edge!

2008-10-31T20:38:00.000-07:00

This is a picture of a bumper sticker I’ve had on my car for the last three years. For the past six weeks, it's been counter-balanced on the other side by an Obama-Biden sticker.

I live in the bluest of blue parts of the country, so I didn’t really expect to upset a lot of people when I chose to display it. I’ve gotten some compliments, mostly from friends and acquaintances, and a few thumbs up signs from drivers as they passed me on the freeway. Not one time in the last three years has anyone expressed a negative reaction to the sticker.

Until today!

I was parked in the lot next to the building my company shares with a Kaiser Permanente medical office, so there is a lot of foot traffic. When I got in the car to drive home, I noticed a note stuck under my wiper blade. It turned out to be the two page rant shown below:

Here’s the full text:

About Your Bumper Sticker

Excuse me but Bill Clinton was also a convicted perjurer. Furthermore, he was also accused of rape by Juanita Broderick (sp) on the 60 Minutes show. Ms. Broderick was a Democratic campaign worker who passed a polygraph exam after making the rape accusation.

Bill Clinton (Bubba) had a 20 year history of sexually harassing the females in his workplace.

So you see its not simply about blowjobs you dimwit.

Looks like someone was denied their prescription for Prozac!

Of course, I’m not such a “dimwit” that I actually consider the bumper sticker to be a defense of Bill Clinton!

Perhaps, if the note writer wasn’t so freaked out by the prospect of an Obama presidency (my wild-arsed assumption), he or she might realize it’s an implied indictment of George W. Bush, who has been accused not of a 20-something-year-old, impossible-to-prove, rape; but of a provable, ongoing, daily, six-year mass murder!

Compared to that, anything Clinton ever did, whether I liked it or not, was pretty much just a "blowjob!"

Yes We Carved!

2008-10-31T09:19:00.000-07:00

Happy Halloween from Left-Over! My boys and I carved these last night.

Actually, the Make-Up Artist Earns Every Penny!

2008-10-30T19:12:00.000-07:00

When I heard last week that the highest paid member of the McCain campaign staff was Sarah Palin’s make-up artist, I was intrigued. It seemed pretty outrageous, considering the dire condition of the campaign with less than two weeks to go! How could they spend the donations of hard working people like Joe the Plumber just to gussie up a former beauty queen?

So I did some research to see if I could find out why she was worth more than anyone else, besides the obvious fact that the rest of the campaign is a joke and clearly not worth much!

And I think I found it! Just keep in mind that it’s been quite some time since the former Sarah Heath was runner-up in the Miss Alaska contest and time does take its toll. Paying top dollar for a good make-up artist is much more reasonable when you see this shot of her as she begins her daily routine of preparing Palin for another public appearance:

In fact, this particular make-up artist is a real bargain when you consider that she also does double duty keeping McCain from looking like his early morning self:

Quote of the Day!

2008-10-29T21:21:00.000-07:00

Alec Baldwin on Letterman tonight referred to Sarah Palin as "Bible Spice"!

Will Ted Stevens be the Anchor that McCain Uses to Sink Sarah Palin?

2008-10-28T19:18:00.000-07:00

In the wake of stories about a growing rift between John McCain and Sarah Palin, I found it kind of amusing to hear McCain’s harsh vilification of newly minted felon, Ted Stevens:

Yesterday, Sen. Ted Stevens was found guilty of corruption. It is a sign of the health of our democracy that the people continue to hold their representatives to account for improper or illegal conduct, but this verdict is also a sign of the corruption and insider-dealing that has become so pervasive in our nation's capital.

"It is clear that Sen. Stevens has broken his trust with the people and that he should now step down. I hope that my colleagues in the Senate will be spurred by these events to redouble their efforts to end this kind of corruption once and for all."

At this time next week, McCain will be licking his wounds and lamenting the complete evaporation of his reputation for honor and decency; while Palin will be flooding the airwaves (probably with the help of her new BFF, Elizabeth Hasselbeck) with all the reasons she could have beaten Barack Obama if not for the grumpy old boring dude who was dragging her down!

However, I’m going to predict that the spiteful McCain won’t sit back and take this for long, and we’ll soon start hearing a lot more about Palin’s many connections with Senator Stevens and his contractor friends, as described by Wayne Barrett in the Village Voice, including this snippet discussing construction of the Wasilla Sports Complex that Palin oversaw while she was mayor:

A list of subcontractors on the job, obtained by the Voice, includes many with Palin ties. One was Spenard Builders Supply, the state's leading supplier of wood, floor, roof, and other "pre-engineered components." In addition to being a sponsor of Todd Palin's snow-machine team that has earned tens of thousands for the Palin family, Spenard hired Sarah Palin to do a statewide television commercial in 2004. When the Palins began building a new family home off Lake Lucille in 2002—at the same time that Palin was running for lieutenant governor and in her final months as mayor—Spenard supplied the materials, according to Antoine Bricks, who works in its Wasilla office. Spenard actually filed a notice "of its right to assert a lien" on the deed for the Palin property after contracting for labor and materials for the site. Spenard's name has popped up in the trial of Senator Stevens—it worked on the house that is at the center of the VECO scandal as well.

As he has done many times in the past, McCain is going to have to find a way to rehabilitate his tarnished image. What better way to accomplish this than to become the harshest critic and chief finger pointer over the corruption and hypocrisy of others, like Ted Stevens and Sarah Palin?

As an added bonus, it will be the perfect way to stamp out the political future of a woman who bills her self as an “anti-corruption crusader,” but who shows all the signs of being another Larry Craig back when he could still bill himself as an “anti-gay crusader!”

What Next?

2008-10-28T09:19:00.000-07:00

In the last two days, leaks from the McCain campaign have called Sarah Palin a - "Diva"............ claimed she is "going rouge"....................... and today called her a - "whack Job".

Somebody No Likey Ms. Palin!

Have to wonder what they say about her when the press is not around!

A “Team of Mavericks?”

2008-10-27T20:14:00.000-07:00

Apparently, there’s a fine line between being a “maverick” and being a “rogue,” and it looks like Sara Palin is turning out to be a bit too mavericky for some McCain campaign advisors, while demonstrating that she didn’t earn the nickname “Sarah Barracuda” for her unselfish team play!

In fact, I’ll bet she’s ready to start showing her stripes as a “reformer” by taking on the entrenched powers within the McCain campaign, in order to try to make sure she comes out of next week’s landslide loss smelling like, well, something better than a tired old man whose political career is over and whose reputation is in tatters.

My guess is that McCain is having second thoughts about whether he really found his “soul mate,” or whether his VP choice is turning out to be a fatal attraction!

Adventures in Surreality (Part 3)

2008-10-26T17:53:00.000-07:00

I mentioned earlier that, in addition to Bill’s band, there was another band performing at the reunion. They were pretty good, mostly doing covers of familiar rock and blues tunes, but I was too preoccupied visiting former classmates to really pay close attention to them. It was background noise, although on the few occasions when I looked over to see what was going on, they certainly looked the part.

The band was called “St. John and the Sinners,” and the front man, whom I later learned was their namesake, seemed like the prototypical bar band guitar hero. When he wasn’t belting out songs during their set, he was wandering around the Scotia Inn like a celebrity, flashing a big smile to anyone in eyeshot, often with his glamorous looking girlfriend/wife/groupie on his arm.

At some point, I was standing toward the side of the room when I noticed this guy walking toward me with a purpose. To my surprise, he walked right up and asked, “Are you interested in politics? Are you familiar with Watergate?”

I wasn’t quite sure I wanted to admit my current obsession to this stranger, but I was intrigued, so I replied, “A little bit!”

That was enough for him, and he immediately launched into a lengthy story about how his full name was Saint John Hunt, and his father was E. Howard Hunt, the former CIA spy and prominent player in the Watergate drama. According to Saint John, his father had admitted to him, while on his deathbed, involvement in the JFK assassination. He claimed to have extensive evidence that his father had given to him, including a recording of his father’s voice, describing the other participants in the plot, which was approved by none other than Lyndon Johnson.

He said he had been interviewed on PBS and several radio shows in his efforts to get the news out, but that he had been largely thwarted by a reluctance of the media to accept and report the story. He also mentioned having written a book for which he was currently searching for a publisher.

Although it probably wasn’t necessary, when he started talking about some of the other Watergate participants, I was able to feed his enthusiasm by mentioning my past opportunity to meet and converse with John Dean (at the 2007 Yearly Kos Convention). Saint John noted that “Mr. Dean” was an extremely nice man, to which I could easily agree.

He then went on to describe the circumstances of his deathbed conversation with his father, and his frustration over his ongoing difficulties in setting the record straight. He directed me to his website, from which I could download the e-book version of his story for the nominal price of $5.99.

I promised him I would check it out, and made a mental note to arrange a date with “The Google” to research whatever I could find to either confirm his story, or establish that he was a delusional nut who might as well have been telling me about his meetings with Bigfoot, or the recorded conversation of his friend, the log! (another Twin Peaks reference depicted above)

As it turns out, my research confirmed both his identity and the apparent reasons for his difficulty in gaining credibility with the media in telling his story, since his history also includes a lengthy stint as a meth addict and dealer. Nevertheless, his website is here and the recorded voice of the man he claims is his father is here, and it all seems quite feasible.

Perhaps the best account of Saint John Hunt’s story is this article from Rolling Stone, which pretty much covers everything Saint John told me. It concludes with the same level of mixed belief and skepticism that I had as I retired to my room at the end of a surreal evening in which I arrived at a high school reunion and left wondering if I’d just learned who really killed JFK!

The Pottery Barn Rule

2008-10-25T19:25:00.001-07:00

"Break" it and you own it!