Over the past few months conservatives and members of the GOP (Grumpy Old Party) all but dared Sen. Barack Obama to go to Iraq and Afghanistan, figuring any success that additional troops in Iraq have provided would make Obama look bad and his idea of pulling out troops seem questionable.
Instead Obama was photographed time and time again with foreign leaders, giving Obama the impression of being presidential. Add to that Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister, was quoted as saying that he backed the senator’s plan to bring home all US combat troops within 16 months, and American TV viewers were treated to scenes of troops eager to meet with Obama, and Obama looking like a statesman while reviewing the mess in Afghanistan.
And all of this before Obama even got to Germany where 200,000 people came to hear him speak in Berlin. But Sen. John McCain had his own foreign "trip," eating lunch at a German sausage shop.
Somehow the idea of large crowds scare conservatives. Perhaps it destroys the myth that liberal policies are not popular and instead shows that conservatism is of limited appeal. Afterall the only way George Bush could have adoring crowds was to screen the crowds to limit the average American from attending. Nothing like being scared of your own people.
The key for Obama though will be turning the large crowds into large voter turnout. If people don't think the election will be close they might not vote.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Thursday, July 10, 2008
A Nation of Whiners?
Sen. John McCain has said economics isn't his strong suit, so it's not much of a surprise that he selected former Sen. Phil Gramm as his economic advisor. Gramm, also known as Foreclosure Phil, has been described as "a guy who helped screw up the global financial system," seems perfect as McCain's financial advisor.
Gramm's never been one to apologize for his economic failings and on Thursday he solidified his rank as a Republican when he said the United States had "become a nation of whiners." He later complained that he was referring to leaders not the public. Right, when Sen. John Kerry told a joke about Bush, the right wing nuts convinced the public he was talking about the troops so its hard to be sympathetic. Did Gramm and his staff defend Kerry for the nuts mischaracterization? I doubt it.
Perhaps they are whiners because they don't feel they are treated fairly by their employeers or the government. Gramm apparently has a different view of who should be whining. In an article in the Wall Street Journal Gramm said "I recently told Ed Whitacre [former CEO of AT&T, who retired with a $158 million pay package] he was probably the most exploited worker in American history."
Only $158 million? When is enough enough? Is there no line where people look at the good of the whole as opposed to the good of the few?
Economic cluelessness or carelessness is rampant in the Republican party and also in the McCain campaign. On Social Security McCain said “Americans have got to understand that we are paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers in America today. And that’s a disgrace. It’s an absolute disgrace, and it’s got to be fixed,” he said.
What the REAL disgrace is is that Social Security taxes are not all going to pay benefits, or being saved, but rather being used by the government to give the illusion that the deficit is lower than it is and allow the Bush Administration to avoid raising taxes to pay for the tax cuts they passes and the war in Iraq.
Now that's a economic disgrace.
Gramm's never been one to apologize for his economic failings and on Thursday he solidified his rank as a Republican when he said the United States had "become a nation of whiners." He later complained that he was referring to leaders not the public. Right, when Sen. John Kerry told a joke about Bush, the right wing nuts convinced the public he was talking about the troops so its hard to be sympathetic. Did Gramm and his staff defend Kerry for the nuts mischaracterization? I doubt it.
Perhaps they are whiners because they don't feel they are treated fairly by their employeers or the government. Gramm apparently has a different view of who should be whining. In an article in the Wall Street Journal Gramm said "I recently told Ed Whitacre [former CEO of AT&T, who retired with a $158 million pay package] he was probably the most exploited worker in American history."
Only $158 million? When is enough enough? Is there no line where people look at the good of the whole as opposed to the good of the few?
Economic cluelessness or carelessness is rampant in the Republican party and also in the McCain campaign. On Social Security McCain said “Americans have got to understand that we are paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers in America today. And that’s a disgrace. It’s an absolute disgrace, and it’s got to be fixed,” he said.
What the REAL disgrace is is that Social Security taxes are not all going to pay benefits, or being saved, but rather being used by the government to give the illusion that the deficit is lower than it is and allow the Bush Administration to avoid raising taxes to pay for the tax cuts they passes and the war in Iraq.
Now that's a economic disgrace.
Fox News Bullies
George Carlin spoke about the seven words you can't say on television. Apparently according to the New York Times the seven letters that the media avoid typing is Fox News.
According to the New York Times articles, Fox News people are such jerks that the media self censor themselves to avoid having to deal with Fox. As David Carr wrote in the Times article, "as crude as that sounds, it works. By blacklisting reporters it does not like, planting stories with friendlies at every turn, Fox News has been living a life beyond consequence for years. Honesty compels me to admit that I have choked a few times at the keyboard when Fox News has come up in a story and it was not absolutely critical to the matter at hand."
Perhaps the best example was when a New York Times reporter repeatedly tried to get a comment from Fox News on a ratings story but couldn't get his calls returned yet "in a neat trick, while they were ignoring his calls, they e-mailed his boss asking why they had not heard from him."
This harkens back to how "The White House in December refused to accept the Environmental Protection Agency’s conclusion that greenhouse gases are pollutants that must be controlled, telling agency officials that an e-mail message containing the document would not be opened, the Times reported.
One can only assume all of this is part of conservatives efforts to skew the news. After all conservatives expect the media to be conservative and are upset when that doesn't work. Liberals expect coverage to be balanced and are upset when it isn't.
That is why Fox News is the media of choice for conservatives and NPR is the media of choice for liberals. By continual complaining about coverage, conservatives are able to bully the media into reporting their version of reality because it is no longer worth going after the facts. And once the media is bullied into submission, the new "reality" becomes accepted.
Perhaps rather than "We Report, You Decide," Fox News slogan should be "We distort, You're Deceived."
According to the New York Times articles, Fox News people are such jerks that the media self censor themselves to avoid having to deal with Fox. As David Carr wrote in the Times article, "as crude as that sounds, it works. By blacklisting reporters it does not like, planting stories with friendlies at every turn, Fox News has been living a life beyond consequence for years. Honesty compels me to admit that I have choked a few times at the keyboard when Fox News has come up in a story and it was not absolutely critical to the matter at hand."
Perhaps the best example was when a New York Times reporter repeatedly tried to get a comment from Fox News on a ratings story but couldn't get his calls returned yet "in a neat trick, while they were ignoring his calls, they e-mailed his boss asking why they had not heard from him."
This harkens back to how "The White House in December refused to accept the Environmental Protection Agency’s conclusion that greenhouse gases are pollutants that must be controlled, telling agency officials that an e-mail message containing the document would not be opened, the Times reported.
One can only assume all of this is part of conservatives efforts to skew the news. After all conservatives expect the media to be conservative and are upset when that doesn't work. Liberals expect coverage to be balanced and are upset when it isn't.
That is why Fox News is the media of choice for conservatives and NPR is the media of choice for liberals. By continual complaining about coverage, conservatives are able to bully the media into reporting their version of reality because it is no longer worth going after the facts. And once the media is bullied into submission, the new "reality" becomes accepted.
Perhaps rather than "We Report, You Decide," Fox News slogan should be "We distort, You're Deceived."
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Why Clinton Lost
In today’s reviews of why Sen. Barack Obama won the Democratic Presidential Nomination one of the points you won’t see much made is the role of George Bush and the 1990s media.
George Bush, the 1990s media? What has that got to do with the Democratic race? A lot, however the mainstream media will focus on Clinton’s mistake of trying to win it by Super Tuesday and the right wing media (almost the same as MSM) will claim people are finally realizing the truth about the Clintons.
No, for a number of people the thought of extending the Bush-Clinton-Bush presidency of the last 20 years was too much to take, especially with the idea that there is another Bush (Jeb) out there. The Bush presidencies were so bad, and the 1990s media were so irresponsible (and believed themselves above questioning), that a number of people decided that it was time to move on.
The early rejection of Sen. Clinton was a rejection of Bush and his war, which Clinton probably to her regret, voted to authorize. In addition, people were concerned that if Sen. Clinton were the nominee all the right wing extremists would come out of the woodwork to fight her. And after watching the media of the 1990s, one can imagine the media would gleefully join in the “Hunting of the President, Part II.”
You have to wonder if Sue Schmidt, of the Washington Post, took one of the buyouts when figured she wouldn't have a chance to come back and use her journalistic butcher knives and go after the Clintons.
If anything, the string of victories Sen. Clinton put together at the end of the campaign season show there is still a great deal of desire for another Clinton administration. The problem was that the Clinton’s didn’t understand the hesitancy people would have in giving the media another crack at them or opening the door for another Bush term.
George Bush, the 1990s media? What has that got to do with the Democratic race? A lot, however the mainstream media will focus on Clinton’s mistake of trying to win it by Super Tuesday and the right wing media (almost the same as MSM) will claim people are finally realizing the truth about the Clintons.
No, for a number of people the thought of extending the Bush-Clinton-Bush presidency of the last 20 years was too much to take, especially with the idea that there is another Bush (Jeb) out there. The Bush presidencies were so bad, and the 1990s media were so irresponsible (and believed themselves above questioning), that a number of people decided that it was time to move on.
The early rejection of Sen. Clinton was a rejection of Bush and his war, which Clinton probably to her regret, voted to authorize. In addition, people were concerned that if Sen. Clinton were the nominee all the right wing extremists would come out of the woodwork to fight her. And after watching the media of the 1990s, one can imagine the media would gleefully join in the “Hunting of the President, Part II.”
You have to wonder if Sue Schmidt, of the Washington Post, took one of the buyouts when figured she wouldn't have a chance to come back and use her journalistic butcher knives and go after the Clintons.
If anything, the string of victories Sen. Clinton put together at the end of the campaign season show there is still a great deal of desire for another Clinton administration. The problem was that the Clinton’s didn’t understand the hesitancy people would have in giving the media another crack at them or opening the door for another Bush term.
Monday, June 02, 2008
Would President Snippy Have Listened?
One of the biggest White House talking points about former press secretary Scott McClellan's book has been "Why didn't Scott bring up his concerns when he was here?" bringing up an image of poor old George Bush just waiting for someone to tell him the truth.
But in the words of the White House attack dogs, "That's Not the George Bush I knew."
To suggest that Bush would have listened to criticisms is preposterous, ridiculous and for a White House official to offer such a suggestion is tantamount to lying, or possibly remorse that they didn't boot the non-believer out years ago.
In 2005 Newsweek pointed out Bush doesn't tolerate dissent in his administration ["A White House aide, who like virtually all White House officials (in this story and in general) refused to be identified for fear of antagonizing the president.."] however you don't see that point made in McCellan stories that include the White House talking point that McCellan should have made his views known.
As a reporter, if a White House official makes such a claim and expects the reporter to publish it, shouldn't they ask at least "so Bush would have listened?" Instead too many follow the Charlie Gibson "it was not our job to debate them" mentality.
But since apparently no one in the media is questioning that ridiculous idea, even Sen. Bob Dole has jumped into the fray saying that McClellan "should have spoken up publicly like a man." At least Dole offered also the suggestion that McClellan could have quit. That was the better question. Bush never would have listened, the only option staff had was to quit.
Unfortunately the Bush Bubble was pretty thick and apparently it took a while for McCellan to detoxify. So for all those who believe that McCellan should have spoken up one assumes that they are now urging all White House officials to be up front and frank about any and all concerns they have. I'm sure John McCain will enjoy that.
But in the words of the White House attack dogs, "That's Not the George Bush I knew."
To suggest that Bush would have listened to criticisms is preposterous, ridiculous and for a White House official to offer such a suggestion is tantamount to lying, or possibly remorse that they didn't boot the non-believer out years ago.
In 2005 Newsweek pointed out Bush doesn't tolerate dissent in his administration ["A White House aide, who like virtually all White House officials (in this story and in general) refused to be identified for fear of antagonizing the president.."] however you don't see that point made in McCellan stories that include the White House talking point that McCellan should have made his views known.
As a reporter, if a White House official makes such a claim and expects the reporter to publish it, shouldn't they ask at least "so Bush would have listened?" Instead too many follow the Charlie Gibson "it was not our job to debate them" mentality.
But since apparently no one in the media is questioning that ridiculous idea, even Sen. Bob Dole has jumped into the fray saying that McClellan "should have spoken up publicly like a man." At least Dole offered also the suggestion that McClellan could have quit. That was the better question. Bush never would have listened, the only option staff had was to quit.
Unfortunately the Bush Bubble was pretty thick and apparently it took a while for McCellan to detoxify. So for all those who believe that McCellan should have spoken up one assumes that they are now urging all White House officials to be up front and frank about any and all concerns they have. I'm sure John McCain will enjoy that.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Is it Something in the White House Water?
With the news that former Bush Press Secretary Scott McCellan has written a memoir stating that the Iraq war was sold to the American people with a sophisticated "political propaganda campaign" he joins the legions of former officials who have come to their senses after leaving the White House.
According to the Washington Post and Politico.com, McCellan's book What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception, delivers a harsh look at the White House and the man he served for close to a decade. Wow, call Mike Wallace!
The sad thing is that this isn't news. Only the disinterested, dishonest and delusional have believed that the Bush Administration has been acting ethically, honestly, or in the interests of the American public.
While some may praise the McCellan's courage in finally stating the truth, it is four years too late. Where was McCellan in 2004 when he could have made a difference? Taking part in the Bush political propaganda campaign that tashed Sen. John Kerry by just enough to allow Bush to win the 2004 election.
Among the gems that apparently are in the book, McCellan writes that “As press secretary, I spent countless hours defending the administration from the podium in the White House briefing room. Although the things I said then were sincere, I have since come to realize that some of them were badly misguided.”
Some? McCellan also writes that "The president had promised himself that he would accomplish what his father had failed to do by winning a second term in office," he writes. "And that meant operating continually in campaign mode: never explaining, never apologizing, never retreating. Unfortunately, that strategy also had less justifiable repercussions: never reflecting, never reconsidering, never compromising. Especially not where Iraq was concerned."
One can look back and see all the warnings that the Bush Administration would be a failure and the American people tried to avoid it, electing Al Gore president in 2000. Unfortunately the will of the people was overturned, as displayed in RECOUNT.
Apparently the only questions left is when will Jim Baker join the crowd and apologize for his role in this disaster?
According to the Washington Post and Politico.com, McCellan's book What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception, delivers a harsh look at the White House and the man he served for close to a decade. Wow, call Mike Wallace!
The sad thing is that this isn't news. Only the disinterested, dishonest and delusional have believed that the Bush Administration has been acting ethically, honestly, or in the interests of the American public.
While some may praise the McCellan's courage in finally stating the truth, it is four years too late. Where was McCellan in 2004 when he could have made a difference? Taking part in the Bush political propaganda campaign that tashed Sen. John Kerry by just enough to allow Bush to win the 2004 election.
Among the gems that apparently are in the book, McCellan writes that “As press secretary, I spent countless hours defending the administration from the podium in the White House briefing room. Although the things I said then were sincere, I have since come to realize that some of them were badly misguided.”
Some? McCellan also writes that "The president had promised himself that he would accomplish what his father had failed to do by winning a second term in office," he writes. "And that meant operating continually in campaign mode: never explaining, never apologizing, never retreating. Unfortunately, that strategy also had less justifiable repercussions: never reflecting, never reconsidering, never compromising. Especially not where Iraq was concerned."
One can look back and see all the warnings that the Bush Administration would be a failure and the American people tried to avoid it, electing Al Gore president in 2000. Unfortunately the will of the people was overturned, as displayed in RECOUNT.
Apparently the only questions left is when will Jim Baker join the crowd and apologize for his role in this disaster?
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Will Florida Repeat its 2000 Fiasco
With the HBO movie RECOUNT set to be run on Sunday and Sen. Hillary Clinton in Florida trying to compare the Democrat's plan on not seating Florida delegates at the 2008 Democratic Convention to what happened in Florida in 2000, one has to wonder if Sen. Clinton needs to watch the movie.
The Chicago Tribune reported that Sen. Clinton said Florida voters "learned the hard way what happens when your votes aren't counted and the candidate with fewer votes is declared the winner."
Yeah, the nation learned that the person in second place in both the popular vote and the electoral college can bull their way to the White House by taking advantage of Florida's mismanagement of the electoral process.
As the Washington Post pointed out, all of the Democratic candidates agreed to boycott January primaries in Florida and Michigan after the states violated party rules by selecting early dates. Nonetheless, the elections were held and Clinton won both, though Obama's name was not on the ballot in Michigan.
In 2000 thousands of votes in Florida weren't counted for various reasons and as a result the intent of the voters was subverted. In 2008, with the knowledge that their vote wouldn't count because Florida again screwed up an election by going against the party's rules, one has to wonder how many Obama votes were lost?
By complaining that the votes of those in Florida who voted aren't being counted and should be, no matter how inaccurate they may be, Sen. Clinton, is imitating the GOP of 2000 who urged that special preference be given to the military ballots that didn't comply with the rules.
Bush’s "official" margin of victory in Florida was 537 votes. Citing the Florida Department of State’s web site, the New York Times reported that without the overseas ballots counted after election day, Gore would have won Florida, and thus the White House, by 202 votes.
Perhaps the win at any cost mentality being displayed by Sen. Clinton is what the Democrats need. In 2000 it was Bush, not Gore as many conservatives implied, who was willing to do what ever it took to take the White House, whether or not he deserved it.
Counting Florida's votes could allow the state again to let a incomplete election help select a president. Why Democrats are willing to allow Florida to mess up another election by mismanaging an election is unfathomable.
Unfortunately it may happen and isn't it ironic it may happen just as a movie about the first disaster comes out. One can only hope someone watches, and learns. Otherwise history may repeat itself.
Thanks to Florida's fiasco in 2000, Bush got the White House. With Florida's fiasco in 2008, Sen. Clinton still has a shot at the White House.
The Chicago Tribune reported that Sen. Clinton said Florida voters "learned the hard way what happens when your votes aren't counted and the candidate with fewer votes is declared the winner."
Yeah, the nation learned that the person in second place in both the popular vote and the electoral college can bull their way to the White House by taking advantage of Florida's mismanagement of the electoral process.
As the Washington Post pointed out, all of the Democratic candidates agreed to boycott January primaries in Florida and Michigan after the states violated party rules by selecting early dates. Nonetheless, the elections were held and Clinton won both, though Obama's name was not on the ballot in Michigan.
In 2000 thousands of votes in Florida weren't counted for various reasons and as a result the intent of the voters was subverted. In 2008, with the knowledge that their vote wouldn't count because Florida again screwed up an election by going against the party's rules, one has to wonder how many Obama votes were lost?
By complaining that the votes of those in Florida who voted aren't being counted and should be, no matter how inaccurate they may be, Sen. Clinton, is imitating the GOP of 2000 who urged that special preference be given to the military ballots that didn't comply with the rules.
Bush’s "official" margin of victory in Florida was 537 votes. Citing the Florida Department of State’s web site, the New York Times reported that without the overseas ballots counted after election day, Gore would have won Florida, and thus the White House, by 202 votes.
Perhaps the win at any cost mentality being displayed by Sen. Clinton is what the Democrats need. In 2000 it was Bush, not Gore as many conservatives implied, who was willing to do what ever it took to take the White House, whether or not he deserved it.
Counting Florida's votes could allow the state again to let a incomplete election help select a president. Why Democrats are willing to allow Florida to mess up another election by mismanaging an election is unfathomable.
Unfortunately it may happen and isn't it ironic it may happen just as a movie about the first disaster comes out. One can only hope someone watches, and learns. Otherwise history may repeat itself.
Thanks to Florida's fiasco in 2000, Bush got the White House. With Florida's fiasco in 2008, Sen. Clinton still has a shot at the White House.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Bush Lies Again
If people wonder why this blog is called Elephantlies, one only has to listen to George Bush on Tuesday explaining why gasoline prices are so high. Bush was continually wrong and the only question was whether he knew he was wrong and lying, or was it just that he doesn't study, isn't very smart, and is intellectually lazy?
Well, Bush did get us stuck in a war in Iraq, so maybe he's not too smart. But when Sen. John Kerry pointed out Bush isn't bright, conservatives jumped all over Kerry's "joke" so that can't be right. As result the only answer is that Bush must be lying, right?
Don't believe me? Let's go to the tape and look at a report on Marketplace, one of the few places that looked into the story and as a result all but called Bush a liar.
Bush: One of the main reasons for high gas prices is that global oil production is not keeping up with growing demand.
Oil Analyst: The U.S. market is well supplied.
Business correspondent Bob Moon pointed out that "analysts have been reporting that gasoline reserves in this country have been on the rise since October and in recent months, we've got more stored up than we have since the early 1990's, so as Shook points out, we've got enough on the supply side. Then you've got demand and that's actually been falling since last July. None other than the Bush administration's own Energy Department now says the demand for gasoline here is on track to see the first annual drop in consumption in 17 years."
Bush: Another reason for the high gas prices is the lack of refining capacity. It's been more than 30 years since America built its last new refinery.
Analyst: We're expanding refining capacity in this country. We have probably more than half a million barrels of new refining capacity per day under construction right now and I wouldn't be surprised to see another 100,000 barrels per day of new capacity announced in the next six months to a year.
But how are the current refineries operating? Moon pointed out that "We're actually using less gasoline lately. Well that means refineries here in the U.S. have actually been cutting back on production because their margins are tightening up."
So why is gas going up? Possibly that the dollar continues to drop against other major currencies. And why is the dollar dropping? Because of the policies of the current administration.
But would Bush tell the truth and say the reason the price of gas is increasing is his administration's fault? No, because elephants lie.
Well, Bush did get us stuck in a war in Iraq, so maybe he's not too smart. But when Sen. John Kerry pointed out Bush isn't bright, conservatives jumped all over Kerry's "joke" so that can't be right. As result the only answer is that Bush must be lying, right?
Don't believe me? Let's go to the tape and look at a report on Marketplace, one of the few places that looked into the story and as a result all but called Bush a liar.
Bush: One of the main reasons for high gas prices is that global oil production is not keeping up with growing demand.
Oil Analyst: The U.S. market is well supplied.
Business correspondent Bob Moon pointed out that "analysts have been reporting that gasoline reserves in this country have been on the rise since October and in recent months, we've got more stored up than we have since the early 1990's, so as Shook points out, we've got enough on the supply side. Then you've got demand and that's actually been falling since last July. None other than the Bush administration's own Energy Department now says the demand for gasoline here is on track to see the first annual drop in consumption in 17 years."
Bush: Another reason for the high gas prices is the lack of refining capacity. It's been more than 30 years since America built its last new refinery.
Analyst: We're expanding refining capacity in this country. We have probably more than half a million barrels of new refining capacity per day under construction right now and I wouldn't be surprised to see another 100,000 barrels per day of new capacity announced in the next six months to a year.
But how are the current refineries operating? Moon pointed out that "We're actually using less gasoline lately. Well that means refineries here in the U.S. have actually been cutting back on production because their margins are tightening up."
So why is gas going up? Possibly that the dollar continues to drop against other major currencies. And why is the dollar dropping? Because of the policies of the current administration.
But would Bush tell the truth and say the reason the price of gas is increasing is his administration's fault? No, because elephants lie.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Who has contempt for the non-elites? The GOP
When Barack Obama's "bitter" comments came out prior to the Pennsylvania primary, a number of conservatives were outraged about the elite comments Obama had and how out of touch he was with the common people and questioned whether he respected the people.
But the people who have the real contempt for the American people is the Republican Party. One only has to look at Florida. It was bad enough when Jeb Bush's administration helped determine the outcome of the 2000 presidential election in favor of his brother, now the state has passed a series of laws that effectively limits efforts to register people to vote.
The New York Times is reporting that the League of Women's Voters of Florida sued state election officials on Monday to challenge a law that fines voter registration groups for losing registration forms or returning them late.
This, along with the Supreme Court's decision on Indiana's Voter ID bill that deals with non-existent voter fraud, and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia comment on the courts' gift of the presidency to George Bush - "get over it. It's so old by now" shows the contempt conservatives have for Americans.
Scalia and others may pretend that their actions are based on laws and concern for laws, in reality their actions are little more than rationalizations for self serving actions.
Rather than questioning if Rev. Wright loves American, maybe one should ask why the right hates America and Americans.
But the people who have the real contempt for the American people is the Republican Party. One only has to look at Florida. It was bad enough when Jeb Bush's administration helped determine the outcome of the 2000 presidential election in favor of his brother, now the state has passed a series of laws that effectively limits efforts to register people to vote.
The New York Times is reporting that the League of Women's Voters of Florida sued state election officials on Monday to challenge a law that fines voter registration groups for losing registration forms or returning them late.
This, along with the Supreme Court's decision on Indiana's Voter ID bill that deals with non-existent voter fraud, and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia comment on the courts' gift of the presidency to George Bush - "get over it. It's so old by now" shows the contempt conservatives have for Americans.
Scalia and others may pretend that their actions are based on laws and concern for laws, in reality their actions are little more than rationalizations for self serving actions.
Rather than questioning if Rev. Wright loves American, maybe one should ask why the right hates America and Americans.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Looking for Liars
Sen. John McCain celebrated locking up the Republican Presidential nomination by getting thumped by the ballot box in most states over the weekend. If ever there was an indication of the lack of support for a nominee, that was it.
The only bright spot was Washington where McCain won by 242 votes. Well he won in a George W. Bush sense of the word. See, according to the Washington Post, they stopped counting with 87 percent of the votes completed. The state Republicans didn't see a problem saying they would go ahead and count the rest of the votes but was certain the totals would hold up.
So Repubican, why bother counting ALL the votes when you can get the result you want by only counting SOME of the votes. Hell, it worked for Bush in 2000 in Florida and now Bush has come out for McCain, saying McCain is a true conservative.
With rigging the Washington election, McCain is on his way to becoming like Bush. The next step may be harder. The only way Bush was able to get close enough to the White House in 2000 was to rely on lying radio, television and newspaper commentators. Today many of those are fighting McCain, leaving McCain to be his own liar.
The question today is whether the right will rally around McCain and join in on the expected series of campaign lies. It is hard to imagine if the Democratic nominee is Sen. Hillary Clinton that right wing radio won't go after her with their lies, its what they live for.
The only bright spot was Washington where McCain won by 242 votes. Well he won in a George W. Bush sense of the word. See, according to the Washington Post, they stopped counting with 87 percent of the votes completed. The state Republicans didn't see a problem saying they would go ahead and count the rest of the votes but was certain the totals would hold up.
So Repubican, why bother counting ALL the votes when you can get the result you want by only counting SOME of the votes. Hell, it worked for Bush in 2000 in Florida and now Bush has come out for McCain, saying McCain is a true conservative.
With rigging the Washington election, McCain is on his way to becoming like Bush. The next step may be harder. The only way Bush was able to get close enough to the White House in 2000 was to rely on lying radio, television and newspaper commentators. Today many of those are fighting McCain, leaving McCain to be his own liar.
The question today is whether the right will rally around McCain and join in on the expected series of campaign lies. It is hard to imagine if the Democratic nominee is Sen. Hillary Clinton that right wing radio won't go after her with their lies, its what they live for.
Friday, February 08, 2008
McCain locks up party of hate nomination
One of the biggest questions of 2008 is why Sen. John McCain is going after the nomination of a party that basically hates him. One only has to look at the booing he received at the CPAC meeting on Thursday to see how out of touch with reality these people are.
The booing and criticism came after the CPAC's chosen candidate; Mitt "Flip Flop" Romney announced he was no longer running. Romney, in a statement reminiscent of the type of disgusting and disingenuous comments made standard by the Bush-Cheney "Cheat to Win" team, said he was bowing out to avoid "aiding a surrender to terror."
Even Howard Kurtz didn't swallow that line, saying Come on! He's getting out because he got his butt kicked, had no chance of winning and didn't want to spend any more of his children's inheritance on a hopeless task.
In reality, getting the Bush-Cheney team out of the White House in January 2009 will be the biggest, and most effective, anti-terrorist tactict the United States has taken in years.
With no leadership shown by the current administration, Afghanistan, the country that actually attacked the United States on September 11, 2001, is sliding back toward Taliban control and NATO countries are losing interest in helping the U.S. because it isn't a priority for us.
Just think about that. The greatest attack on the United States in more than 50 years has been met by indifference, or noncaring, by the administration and Republican Party. If there is a lesson for terrorists, it is that we are not serious about fighting back. Go ahead and attack us, we won't go after you, unless it it fits in some larger geopolitical scheme.
For all those who cried when Romney gave up the fight for the Republican nomination, those tears would be better spent over your party giving up on the fight against terrorism.
The booing and criticism came after the CPAC's chosen candidate; Mitt "Flip Flop" Romney announced he was no longer running. Romney, in a statement reminiscent of the type of disgusting and disingenuous comments made standard by the Bush-Cheney "Cheat to Win" team, said he was bowing out to avoid "aiding a surrender to terror."
Even Howard Kurtz didn't swallow that line, saying Come on! He's getting out because he got his butt kicked, had no chance of winning and didn't want to spend any more of his children's inheritance on a hopeless task.
In reality, getting the Bush-Cheney team out of the White House in January 2009 will be the biggest, and most effective, anti-terrorist tactict the United States has taken in years.
With no leadership shown by the current administration, Afghanistan, the country that actually attacked the United States on September 11, 2001, is sliding back toward Taliban control and NATO countries are losing interest in helping the U.S. because it isn't a priority for us.
Just think about that. The greatest attack on the United States in more than 50 years has been met by indifference, or noncaring, by the administration and Republican Party. If there is a lesson for terrorists, it is that we are not serious about fighting back. Go ahead and attack us, we won't go after you, unless it it fits in some larger geopolitical scheme.
For all those who cried when Romney gave up the fight for the Republican nomination, those tears would be better spent over your party giving up on the fight against terrorism.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Obama - Clinton political hardball
The recent political hardball being thrown in the Democratic primary between Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama has a lot of hand wringing in the Democratic party and a lot of Republicans complaining about the Clinton's tactics.
While people may not like how the Clinton's are campaigning, one has to remember that Bill Clinton is the only Democrats who have been able to take the White House in more than 30 years. In the last eight years, many Democrats fed up with how the GOP has campaign have said that the Democrats need to take up the mantra of Jim Malone (Sean Connery's character) in the Untouchables movie.
You wanna know how you do it? Here's how, they pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue! That's the Chicago way, and that's how you get Capone! Now do you want to do that? Are you ready to do that?
One only has to look at how Al Gore won the 2000 election but was too much of a statesman and American to challenge the theft of the presidency. Unfortunately that may go down as one of the greatest mistakes in American history. Perhaps he had no chance with the way the House of Representatives would have settled the election, but we will never know.
Sen. John Kerry also didn't respond adequately to the false attacks by those on the Right and George Bush was given another pass to the White House. Today many Americans who voted for Bush rue their vote.
The hardball politics makes Democrats uncomfortable because they don't live by the "any means necessary" mentality permeating in the Republican Party. They view their party as the party of hope, as portrayed by Obama. Which is great except for people need to remember who they are campaigning against.
The Republicans farm out their gutter politics to their hate radio division, GOPTV (aka Fox News), or any one of a number of editorial page columnists newspapers feel they must carry to appease those on the right. If one can stand it, one only has to listen, watch, or read a little to the see the impact this unpaid, but very valuable, support has had for the party.
With supporters on the left concentrating on reason over gutter politics, Democratic candidates often find they have to fill the role of "media gutterists," and the results aren't pretty (just ask former Sen. Max Cleland).
However, this year because of the revulsion over George W. Bush, the Democratic Party may not need to get in the gutter with the GOP, but they need to be prepared to go there.
While people may not like how the Clinton's are campaigning, one has to remember that Bill Clinton is the only Democrats who have been able to take the White House in more than 30 years. In the last eight years, many Democrats fed up with how the GOP has campaign have said that the Democrats need to take up the mantra of Jim Malone (Sean Connery's character) in the Untouchables movie.
You wanna know how you do it? Here's how, they pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue! That's the Chicago way, and that's how you get Capone! Now do you want to do that? Are you ready to do that?
One only has to look at how Al Gore won the 2000 election but was too much of a statesman and American to challenge the theft of the presidency. Unfortunately that may go down as one of the greatest mistakes in American history. Perhaps he had no chance with the way the House of Representatives would have settled the election, but we will never know.
Sen. John Kerry also didn't respond adequately to the false attacks by those on the Right and George Bush was given another pass to the White House. Today many Americans who voted for Bush rue their vote.
The hardball politics makes Democrats uncomfortable because they don't live by the "any means necessary" mentality permeating in the Republican Party. They view their party as the party of hope, as portrayed by Obama. Which is great except for people need to remember who they are campaigning against.
The Republicans farm out their gutter politics to their hate radio division, GOPTV (aka Fox News), or any one of a number of editorial page columnists newspapers feel they must carry to appease those on the right. If one can stand it, one only has to listen, watch, or read a little to the see the impact this unpaid, but very valuable, support has had for the party.
With supporters on the left concentrating on reason over gutter politics, Democratic candidates often find they have to fill the role of "media gutterists," and the results aren't pretty (just ask former Sen. Max Cleland).
However, this year because of the revulsion over George W. Bush, the Democratic Party may not need to get in the gutter with the GOP, but they need to be prepared to go there.
Monday, January 21, 2008
McCains claims victory after GOP abandonment
One of odder items about Sen. John McCain's "victory" in South Carolina is the fact that he saw his support drop from 2000 and also the number of Republicans voting dropped significantly, leading one to believe McCain won a dying party's primary.
In South Carolina, McCain saw his support drop from around 240,000 in 2000 to around 143,000 in 2008, or a drop in percentage from 42 percent of the vote to 33 percent.
McCain's "victory" came about because of a greater split in the GOP and also apparently a number of people abandoning the GOP. In 2000 more than 573,000 Republicans voted in the South Carolina primary. In 2008 only around 431,000 Republicans voted, or a drop of more than 25 percent.
Supposedly McCain won with the support of independents but one has to wonder if most are just waiting for the upcoming Democratic primary to vote. But perhaps McCain can be comforted by the fact that the party's nomination he is after is filled by people who hate him.
One only has to look at those making allegations he collaborated with the North Vietnamese while he was a POW. And one thought these people were slimy with their allegations about Sen. John Kerry.
In 2004 McCain had the opportunity to ditch these hatemongers, instead he doubled his efforts to win their support. If this is the party he wants to lead so badly perhaps he should have it.
In South Carolina, McCain saw his support drop from around 240,000 in 2000 to around 143,000 in 2008, or a drop in percentage from 42 percent of the vote to 33 percent.
McCain's "victory" came about because of a greater split in the GOP and also apparently a number of people abandoning the GOP. In 2000 more than 573,000 Republicans voted in the South Carolina primary. In 2008 only around 431,000 Republicans voted, or a drop of more than 25 percent.
Supposedly McCain won with the support of independents but one has to wonder if most are just waiting for the upcoming Democratic primary to vote. But perhaps McCain can be comforted by the fact that the party's nomination he is after is filled by people who hate him.
One only has to look at those making allegations he collaborated with the North Vietnamese while he was a POW. And one thought these people were slimy with their allegations about Sen. John Kerry.
In 2004 McCain had the opportunity to ditch these hatemongers, instead he doubled his efforts to win their support. If this is the party he wants to lead so badly perhaps he should have it.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Endorsing Obama
Sen. John Kerry's endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama may come as a surprise to some but it was Kerry who gave Obama his chance to be seen as keynote speaker of the 2004 Democratic National Convention.
Some might have thought that he would endorse Sen. John Edwards, but while the two may have made a good looking team, they could never quite mesh, not even being able to agree on whether to use "Help is on the Way" (Kerry) or "Hope is on the Way" (Edwards).
At a Edwards presidential campaign kickoff campaign stop in Des Moines in late 2006 the usual background music was being played and when Bruce Springsteen's "Land of Hope and Dreams" came on it reminded me of the Kerry campaign of 2004. However before the song was finished it was cut off and replaced with another tune, as if it was a bad reminder of 2004.
Endorsing Sen. Clinton was also probably be inappropriate after her criticism of Kerry's joke about Bush in 2006, which the MSM/right wing spun as some attack on the troops. Only the deceived, dishonest or delusional could have said that Kerry's comments were anything other than a criticism of Bush and Sen. Clinton's criticism played into their hands.
Sen. Clinton, of all people, should understand the need to not let the right wing rewrite events to their liking and to their advantage. Someone, other than Keith Olbermann, should have pointed out the truth about the comment. Instead the GOP got Kerry to apologize, giving credence to those who thought he said something against the troops.
Comedian Bill Maher was closer to truth when he said "John Kerry made a joke about Bush being a moron, and now Bush wants morons to think it was a joke was about the troops."
Some might have thought that he would endorse Sen. John Edwards, but while the two may have made a good looking team, they could never quite mesh, not even being able to agree on whether to use "Help is on the Way" (Kerry) or "Hope is on the Way" (Edwards).
At a Edwards presidential campaign kickoff campaign stop in Des Moines in late 2006 the usual background music was being played and when Bruce Springsteen's "Land of Hope and Dreams" came on it reminded me of the Kerry campaign of 2004. However before the song was finished it was cut off and replaced with another tune, as if it was a bad reminder of 2004.
Endorsing Sen. Clinton was also probably be inappropriate after her criticism of Kerry's joke about Bush in 2006, which the MSM/right wing spun as some attack on the troops. Only the deceived, dishonest or delusional could have said that Kerry's comments were anything other than a criticism of Bush and Sen. Clinton's criticism played into their hands.
Sen. Clinton, of all people, should understand the need to not let the right wing rewrite events to their liking and to their advantage. Someone, other than Keith Olbermann, should have pointed out the truth about the comment. Instead the GOP got Kerry to apologize, giving credence to those who thought he said something against the troops.
Comedian Bill Maher was closer to truth when he said "John Kerry made a joke about Bush being a moron, and now Bush wants morons to think it was a joke was about the troops."
Friday, July 13, 2007
I Told You So
It should come as no surprise to anyone that when George Bush finally responded to questions about criminal behavior taking place by high ranking officials in his administration, he responded by avoiding questions and saying it was time to move on.
On July 13 the Washington Post reported that Bush "acknowledged for the first time yesterday that "somebody" in his administration leaked the name of an undercover intelligence officer but declined to say whether he was disappointed in such an action and contended that it is time to move on."
For readers of this column, his response was expected as on July 3 we wrote "Bush has not responded to questions on the case before, saying that it was a pending matter. No doubt he will now say that it is time to put this incident behind us and not comment further, an attempt to eliminate any accountability of his administration."
So you out a covert operative working on weapons of mass destruction, at the same time you are planning a war against a country who supposedly has WMD and what happens, and when questioned you say either you can't talk or it's time to move on.
It must be great to be a Republican.
Rather than being held accountable to the voters you get your supporters to lie long enough to get past elections, and even if you can't hide all the evidence, you commute the felon's sentence, see that he gets a cushy job and probably when no one is looking, you pardon him. Then you require all your papers on the subject be out of the public view for years so you never, ever, have to face any consequences for your actions.
In the Clinton administration endless investigations were held on the circumstances on the all important matters of his private life and personnel at the White House Travel Office. Investigating firings of US Attorneys and outing covert operatives, apparently that's just no big deal.
On July 13 the Washington Post reported that Bush "acknowledged for the first time yesterday that "somebody" in his administration leaked the name of an undercover intelligence officer but declined to say whether he was disappointed in such an action and contended that it is time to move on."
For readers of this column, his response was expected as on July 3 we wrote "Bush has not responded to questions on the case before, saying that it was a pending matter. No doubt he will now say that it is time to put this incident behind us and not comment further, an attempt to eliminate any accountability of his administration."
So you out a covert operative working on weapons of mass destruction, at the same time you are planning a war against a country who supposedly has WMD and what happens, and when questioned you say either you can't talk or it's time to move on.
It must be great to be a Republican.
Rather than being held accountable to the voters you get your supporters to lie long enough to get past elections, and even if you can't hide all the evidence, you commute the felon's sentence, see that he gets a cushy job and probably when no one is looking, you pardon him. Then you require all your papers on the subject be out of the public view for years so you never, ever, have to face any consequences for your actions.
In the Clinton administration endless investigations were held on the circumstances on the all important matters of his private life and personnel at the White House Travel Office. Investigating firings of US Attorneys and outing covert operatives, apparently that's just no big deal.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Lie Like Libby
George Bush's decision to commute the sentence of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby for lying about his role in outing a covert CIA operative should come as no surprise to anyone who has watched this administration.
Considering the Bush got into power by manipulating the vote in Florida, his administration then manipulated the facts to get the country into deadly war that may harm us for generations, it is no surprise that Libby got a pardon, well a commutation today and probably a pardon in December 2008.
As the Washington Post pointed out, faced with a difficult ethical decision, Bush apparently didn't even bother checking the legal aspects, commuting the "sentence without running requests through lawyers at the Justice Department."
As the Vice President's Chief of Staff, Libby took part in the efforts to take down Joe Wilson, a critic of the administration, who had the audacity to point out that the administration was lying, which in the administration's mind was unacceptable.
For if the true intentions and true actions of the administration had been exposed in 2003 it is extremely doubtful Bush would have won the 2004 election. The administration's whole goal was to push the investigation and outcome past the 2004 election, allowing them four more years to wreck havoc on the country.
Wilson probably had the best observation of the administration, that they are "corrupt to the core."
Bush has not responded to questions on the case before, saying that it was a pending matter. No doubt he will now say that it is time to put this incident behind us and not comment further, an attempt to eliminate any accountability of his administration.
Despite the commutation and impending pardon, Bush said Libby's punishment remained "harsh," in part because his professional reputation "is forever damaged." However since Libby acted like a good soldier and didn't sing, therefore helping hide the adminstration's actions, it is doubtful that he will suffer much, if at all.
One can only hope that the public, the true victims in this case, will look at the joyous reaction on the right and Republican presidential candidates and offer their own form of justice.
Considering the Bush got into power by manipulating the vote in Florida, his administration then manipulated the facts to get the country into deadly war that may harm us for generations, it is no surprise that Libby got a pardon, well a commutation today and probably a pardon in December 2008.
As the Washington Post pointed out, faced with a difficult ethical decision, Bush apparently didn't even bother checking the legal aspects, commuting the "sentence without running requests through lawyers at the Justice Department."
As the Vice President's Chief of Staff, Libby took part in the efforts to take down Joe Wilson, a critic of the administration, who had the audacity to point out that the administration was lying, which in the administration's mind was unacceptable.
For if the true intentions and true actions of the administration had been exposed in 2003 it is extremely doubtful Bush would have won the 2004 election. The administration's whole goal was to push the investigation and outcome past the 2004 election, allowing them four more years to wreck havoc on the country.
Wilson probably had the best observation of the administration, that they are "corrupt to the core."
Bush has not responded to questions on the case before, saying that it was a pending matter. No doubt he will now say that it is time to put this incident behind us and not comment further, an attempt to eliminate any accountability of his administration.
Despite the commutation and impending pardon, Bush said Libby's punishment remained "harsh," in part because his professional reputation "is forever damaged." However since Libby acted like a good soldier and didn't sing, therefore helping hide the adminstration's actions, it is doubtful that he will suffer much, if at all.
One can only hope that the public, the true victims in this case, will look at the joyous reaction on the right and Republican presidential candidates and offer their own form of justice.
Monday, June 11, 2007
The Sixth Myth About Scooter
Faced with the prospect of seeing one of the administration's top officials go to jail for lying in court, conservatives, who not that many years ago decried President Clinton's testimony in a politically motivated case, have decided that the only way to come out on top on a case involving outing a covert CIA agent is to attempt to confuse the public.
On Sunday, in the Washington Post Carol D. Leonnig wrote about "5 Myths About Scooter and the Slammer," dispelling myths such as Valerie Plame wasn't a covert operative.
While the five myths were interesting, the sixth, and most recent (Libby's sentence was unfair because Clinton didn't get a prison sentence) wasn't addressed.
By complaining that the 30 month jail sentence for Scooter Libby is unfair compared to what Clinton received, the conservatives are comparing apples and oranges, hoping that the lazy press won't stop them and point out the differences. Unfortunately, too many conservative talking heads make this point without being corrected.
For anyone that cares, the differences in the case is that Clinton reached an agreement with Special Prosecutor Robert Ray on his testimony, admitting he had wrongly tried to evade questions about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, was fined and gave up his law license for five years.
Libby refused to admit to anything and went to trial, was convicted, and was sentenced to 30 months in jail. Maybe if Libby admitted his testimony wasn't accurate he wouldn't be facing jail time.
But pointing that out to the conservatives would deprive them of talking point and so the sixth myth lives on.
On Sunday, in the Washington Post Carol D. Leonnig wrote about "5 Myths About Scooter and the Slammer," dispelling myths such as Valerie Plame wasn't a covert operative.
While the five myths were interesting, the sixth, and most recent (Libby's sentence was unfair because Clinton didn't get a prison sentence) wasn't addressed.
By complaining that the 30 month jail sentence for Scooter Libby is unfair compared to what Clinton received, the conservatives are comparing apples and oranges, hoping that the lazy press won't stop them and point out the differences. Unfortunately, too many conservative talking heads make this point without being corrected.
For anyone that cares, the differences in the case is that Clinton reached an agreement with Special Prosecutor Robert Ray on his testimony, admitting he had wrongly tried to evade questions about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, was fined and gave up his law license for five years.
Libby refused to admit to anything and went to trial, was convicted, and was sentenced to 30 months in jail. Maybe if Libby admitted his testimony wasn't accurate he wouldn't be facing jail time.
But pointing that out to the conservatives would deprive them of talking point and so the sixth myth lives on.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Time For A Change
During his convention acceptance speech in 2000, one of Dick Cheney's applause lines was that "it was time for them [Clinton & Gore] to go." Well seven years later the American people have decided it is time for Bush and Cheney to, or as Sen. Barack Obama put it in Kansas City - it's time for a change.
Approximately 3,000 people paid $25 a piece to hear a speech by Obama in Kansas City on Saturday, more than eight months prior to the Missouri primary. For comparison
n, Sen. John Kerry filled the same hall in 2004 around the Missouri primary, yet the event was free.
The Kansas City event, and many others around the country, must be the Republican's worst nightmare - for the crowd was made up of a cross section of America, not just the committed political veterans.
One can understand why Republicans worked so hard to limit access to the voting booth. They know they are outnumbered and if the people ever showed up to vote they would have little chance any election.
According to a Newsweek poll the top three Democratic candidates (Obama, Edwards & Clinton) all would defeat the top GOP candidates, with Obama and Edwards winning by an easier margin. Edwards and Obama offer hope for a better future for the country, which for nearly half of the country, has been missing since late 2000.
The major question is whether the changes in the primary system will allow Hillary Clinton, who would make a fine president, but would set the right into a scare mongering campaign that might fool just enough people to elect a Republican, to win the nomination.
If the press had acted responsibly in the 1990s there is no way George W. Bush would have been close enough to "win" the 2000 election and it is difficult to believe the press would act any differently around the Clintons this time around. If anything, the press would be out for blood for being proved wrong and for that many in the public realized they are in part responsible what has taken place in the last seven years.
It's time for a change.
Approximately 3,000 people paid $25 a piece to hear a speech by Obama in Kansas City on Saturday, more than eight months prior to the Missouri primary. For comparison
n, Sen. John Kerry filled the same hall in 2004 around the Missouri primary, yet the event was free.The Kansas City event, and many others around the country, must be the Republican's worst nightmare - for the crowd was made up of a cross section of America, not just the committed political veterans.
One can understand why Republicans worked so hard to limit access to the voting booth. They know they are outnumbered and if the people ever showed up to vote they would have little chance any election.
According to a Newsweek poll the top three Democratic candidates (Obama, Edwards & Clinton) all would defeat the top GOP candidates, with Obama and Edwards winning by an easier margin. Edwards and Obama offer hope for a better future for the country, which for nearly half of the country, has been missing since late 2000.
The major question is whether the changes in the primary system will allow Hillary Clinton, who would make a fine president, but would set the right into a scare mongering campaign that might fool just enough people to elect a Republican, to win the nomination.
If the press had acted responsibly in the 1990s there is no way George W. Bush would have been close enough to "win" the 2000 election and it is difficult to believe the press would act any differently around the Clintons this time around. If anything, the press would be out for blood for being proved wrong and for that many in the public realized they are in part responsible what has taken place in the last seven years.
It's time for a change.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Bush: Success is when violence is a nusance
In 2004 when Sen. John Kerry suggested America would be safe when the country gets "back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance" the Bush campaign reacted with ad taking his words out of context and Dick Cheney called the remarks "naive and dangerous."
Yet how does Bush now describe success in Iraq? "The definition of success as I described is sectarian violence down. Success is not, no violence. There are parts of our own country that have got a certain level of violence to it. But success is a level of violence where the people feel comfortable about living their daily lives. And that's what we're trying to achieve."
So success is a level of violence where people feel comfortable about living their daily lives. Sounds like saying terrorists are not the focus of our lives.
Yet what did President Flip Flop say in 2004 was his goal for Iraq? "Our goal is not to reduce terror to some acceptable level of nuisance. Our goal is to defeat terror by staying on the offensive, destroying terrorists, and spreading freedom and liberty around the world."
But then who takes Bush & Cheney seriously? How did other Republicans react to Kerry's comment? "The idea that you can have an acceptable level of terrorism is frightening," said Rudy Giuliani.
So the question now is will the media remind those politicians of their words? Don't hold your breath.
It's much easier to beat up on a Democrat for making a common sense statement then to show a Republican is a hypocrite for first criticizing that statement for political purpose then later their policy is basically the same thing.
Yet how does Bush now describe success in Iraq? "The definition of success as I described is sectarian violence down. Success is not, no violence. There are parts of our own country that have got a certain level of violence to it. But success is a level of violence where the people feel comfortable about living their daily lives. And that's what we're trying to achieve."
So success is a level of violence where people feel comfortable about living their daily lives. Sounds like saying terrorists are not the focus of our lives.
Yet what did President Flip Flop say in 2004 was his goal for Iraq? "Our goal is not to reduce terror to some acceptable level of nuisance. Our goal is to defeat terror by staying on the offensive, destroying terrorists, and spreading freedom and liberty around the world."
But then who takes Bush & Cheney seriously? How did other Republicans react to Kerry's comment? "The idea that you can have an acceptable level of terrorism is frightening," said Rudy Giuliani.
So the question now is will the media remind those politicians of their words? Don't hold your breath.
It's much easier to beat up on a Democrat for making a common sense statement then to show a Republican is a hypocrite for first criticizing that statement for political purpose then later their policy is basically the same thing.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
"30 Percent Express" To Run Again
Sen. John McCain travels to New Hampshire today to formally announce he is running for president. As one of the main backers of America's involvement in Iraq's civil war, McCain is hoping to secure the "Stay and Die" mantle currently held by Bush, Cheney & Co.
Previously McCain believed the way to win the presidency was by trading in the "Straight Talk Express" for the "30 Percent Express." However now the Washington Post says that his "goal is to broaden the definition of McCain's candidacy, which has been singularly focused on Iraq."
But after watching his painful appearance with Jon Stewart on The Daily Show one has to wonder if McCain can broaden his support much beyond the dead-enders still supporting the war. The most painful part of the McCain's appearance was the realization that it took a comedy show to finally debate some of the important issues of the day with the leaders who are behind those issues.
This was the second day in a row that The Daily Show was at the forefront of breaking news. On Monday, in addition to an insightful skit with John Oliver on the Gonzales hearing, Matt Cooper, formerly of Time Magazine and one of the journalists who faced going to jail over Karl Rove leaking Valerie Plame's name to the press, was on the show to explain why important questions were never asked of Rove.
After Stewart pointed out a number of questions that were never asked of Rove and Cooper agreed they were good questions, Stewart was left asking "do you know any reporters - because you could ask them to ask him about it?"
So the "Straight Talk Express" has jumped the rails and turned into the "30 Percent Express" and main people asking tough political question are on the Comedy Channel. Not quite the civic lesson people expected.
Previously McCain believed the way to win the presidency was by trading in the "Straight Talk Express" for the "30 Percent Express." However now the Washington Post says that his "goal is to broaden the definition of McCain's candidacy, which has been singularly focused on Iraq."
But after watching his painful appearance with Jon Stewart on The Daily Show one has to wonder if McCain can broaden his support much beyond the dead-enders still supporting the war. The most painful part of the McCain's appearance was the realization that it took a comedy show to finally debate some of the important issues of the day with the leaders who are behind those issues.
This was the second day in a row that The Daily Show was at the forefront of breaking news. On Monday, in addition to an insightful skit with John Oliver on the Gonzales hearing, Matt Cooper, formerly of Time Magazine and one of the journalists who faced going to jail over Karl Rove leaking Valerie Plame's name to the press, was on the show to explain why important questions were never asked of Rove.
After Stewart pointed out a number of questions that were never asked of Rove and Cooper agreed they were good questions, Stewart was left asking "do you know any reporters - because you could ask them to ask him about it?"
So the "Straight Talk Express" has jumped the rails and turned into the "30 Percent Express" and main people asking tough political question are on the Comedy Channel. Not quite the civic lesson people expected.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)