January 2007 Archives

Apparently, the Libertarian vote in Montana and Missouri was greater than the Democratic margin of victory in both states:

Missouri Senate

McCaskill (D) 1,047,049
Talent (R) 1,001,238
Gilmour (L) 47,504

Montana Senate

Tester (D) 198,302
Burns (R) 195,455
Jones (L) 10,324

I'm tempted to say that Republicans finally paid the price for wanting to shrink government small enough so that it'll fit into your bedroom. However that would be a generalization that probably doesn't apply to either state's voters.

Maybe a more accurate observation would be that mingling religion into policy decisions on stem-cell research was a bad idea. That's closer to the truth of what happened in Missouri, where Claire McCaskill campaigned heavily in favor of the state's stem-cell initiative.

As for Montana, I'm not sure why the Libertarians turned on incumbent Repulbican Sen. Burns. After all, he was a gun-totin, horseback-ridin cowboy, right? Maybe they just saw him as another corrupt member of the big-spending-Washington-insiders' club.

Whatever it is, it shows (again -- remember Florida 2000?) that 3rd parties can still make a big difference in a close election, even when their candidates lose.

(HT to Kos)

Josh Marshall asks, "When the bogus 'Iran incident' happens that becomes the predicate for a military attack on Iran, what will it look like? Let's try to sketch it out in advance."

Read the whole thing.

P.S. Let's be clear -- whether or not the incident is "bogus" or "real" doesn't matter. THAT'S how badly Bush has damaged this country.

P.P.S. Sen. Webb (D-VA) asks the relevant question:"Is it the position of this administration that it possesses the authority to take unilateral action against Iran, in the absence of a direct threat, without congressional approval?”

Welcome to U4prez.com.

[This] website that lets you run a simulated campaign for president of the United States! These pages will help you to create a winning strategy for your campaign.

[...]

The goal is to get rated highest. To do that you'll need to take a stand on controversial issues in order to energize a base. Then you can add more issues and diversify your campaign to broaden your base.

(HT to Bruce Reed)

"? and the Mysterians" had a #1 hit in 1966 with "96 Tears." They got a real groove going on that cut! And he's had a nice career as an entertainer since then.

Unfortunately, last weekend all the mementos of his 40 years in music went up in smoke. A fire destroyed his entire Michigan home. He's asking anyone with Question Mark memories to contact him on his MySpace Page or to write to him at his post office box: Question Mark and the Mysterians P.O. Box 96 Clio, MI 48420

(HT to Crooks and Liars)

McCain and Giuliani? Bring em on:

In general election matchups, the independent Quinnipiac University poll [in Ohio] finds:

• Sen. Clinton squeaks by Arizona Sen. John McCain 46 - 42 percent;
  
• Clinton inches by former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani 46 - 43 percent;
  
• Clinton tops former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney 52 - 31 percent;
  
• McCain edges Illinois Sen. Barack Obama 41 - 38 percent;
  
• Former Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards edges McCain 44 - 41 percent.

So if you're getting the vapors imagining, say, Hillary getting the nomination, think again.

Hey, Newsweek -- what took you so long?

Better late than never, eh?:

Matt Dowd knows more about the politics of war than almost anyone who has worked inside Bush's inner circle. The president's long-time pollster was the chief strategist for the Bush-Cheney campaign three years ago, when he helped frame the conflict in Iraq as a winning issue for his boss. But as Dowd surveys the field of 2008 presidential candidates, he's puzzled. "The American people have decided what they think about the war and are ready to look to the next stage," he says. "What I don't understand is why the big three GOP candidates have all chosen to follow the president's approach rather than offer up their own alternative."

Exactly! "What's their plaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan?"

There are only three countries that have been created, whole-cloth, out of cultural pluralities: Australia, the US and Israel. In two of them, the separation of church and state has been a crucial point of contention. In the US, government and religion are meant (in theory) to run on parallel tracks. Not so much in Israel. And I worry about that because I believe that the US blueprint is the most durable one. Whether or not Israel can retain her cultural identity (let alone her independence) should she somehow follow that blueprint, remains to be seen. But that's a discusison for another time.

I was reminded of all of this when I read that the Israeli Cabinet has approved a Muslim minister. The Israeli government has always included Arab lawmakers. But only one other Arab has ever been a cabinet minister. As you might expect, Israeli public opinion is all over the place on this:

the appointment of Raleb Majadele, mired for weeks in political infighting and charges of racism, drew renewed criticism from hard-liners who said the move was little more than political expediency. Even Arab lawmakers dismissed the development, saying the government has little real interest in improving the lot of Israel's Arabs.

Majadele told AP Television News that his goals as a Cabinet minister would be "promoting coexistence between the two peoples inside the state, and promoting dialogue between the Palestinians and the Israelis toward negotiations and political agreement."

Sounds hopeful, but you can never tell.

P.S. When do you supposed the Iraqi government will include a Jewish cabinet official? Or Iran? Or Egypt? Or Afghanistan?

P.S.S. We already know what happens when a Muslim Congressman gets elected to the US House.

I'm no expert on military strategy and/or tactics and so I mostly steer clear of the topic. But after watching the following video and reading the story after that, it's pretty clear (once again) that we're wasting our time in Iraq.

The video: CBS declined to broadcast the following report, instead putting it on their web site. Watch the video and then read the piece in the New York Times describing the same situation.

The article in the Times:

In a miniature version of the troop increase that the United States hopes will secure the city, American soldiers and armored vehicles raced onto Haifa Street before dawn to dislodge Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias who have been battling for a stretch of ragged slums and mostly abandoned high rises. But as the sun rose, many of the Iraqi Army units who were supposed to do the actual searches of the buildings did not arrive on time, forcing the Americans to start the job on their own.

McCain's heart isn't in it -- not in the necessary task of pandering to the Republican base. He's not good at it and they don't trust him.

Furthermore, the McCain Doctrine is dead on arrival -- the majority of Americans don't believe we should be sending more troops to Iraq -- and his close association with Bush is a major turn-off.

All of this is beginning to weaken McCain's support...

John McCain (R) 44%
Barack Obama (D) 47%

John McCain (R) 43%
John Edwards (D) 46%

As soon as Giuliani takes a higher profile in the campaign, you'll probably begin to see the same erosion of support for him as well.

(Click to see larger image)

Glenn Greenwald:

Yesterday, Party loyalist Hugh Hewitt unveiled what he and his comrades are calling "The Pledge" -- a creepy, Soviet-sounding declaration of loyalty, all based on Gen. Petraeus' decree, that vows to repudiate any Republican who opposes the "surge"...Bush followers across the Internet are now huddled in strategizing conference calls, and leading right-wing luminaries such as Glenn Reynolds have endorsed The Pledge.

So, come on people, take the "Bite Me" Pledge! Sign the damn petition with the name "Bite Me," or any name you prefer. You can watch this hilarious SNL video if you need some ideas.

Forward this to your friends. Go viral baby! End the War.

Yeah, you have to provide an email address to verify the signature, but if enough people do this, it'll be worth it.

I've often wondered if Barack Obama might not have a glass jaw; and technically the smear from the Fox Noise Channel didn't really test him because they threw the punch below the belt. But I think we know now that the Senator can fight back in style:

...during last night's SOTU speech?

And if so, how'd you feel about it?

Yow! Blitzer goes after Cheney, hammer and tongs:

by Mark Adams

This "plan" kill two birds. The wingnuts will be happy with it because we'll stop seeing the daily doom-n-gloom of a hundred funerals a day -- because the media will stop reporting all the "bad news" from Iraq.

The media will have no choice, because the other "bird" in the plan is to evacuate all American personnel from the country.

You see, the media is only hammering us with the daily death toll because American troops are in harms way. They'll stop if there are no more U.S. targets to worry about. Mmm, Kay?

Besides guys, you've got other problems, and other enemies you can be terrified of.

Allahpundit:  Is Hillary the best we can hope for among the Democratic nominees? Obama talks bipartisanship but votes a deep, rich blue. Edwards is running on a platform of class warfare. Of Gore let us say no more. Who’s left? Unless Mark Warner jumps in and figures out a way to beat all of them by running to their right, Hillary’s probably the most “conservative” (i.e., nominally hawkish) candidate in the pack. Terrifying.

Prosecutor says Libby destroyed "wiped out" Cheney memo

Judging by the prosecutor's opening arguments, Vice President Dick Cheney's role in the CIA leak case could be significant.

It'll interesting to hear the defense's opening statement as well.

UPDATE: David Schuster has "clarified" his earlier report wherein he reported that the prosecutor (Fitzgerald) stated that Libby destroyed an incriminating note. Now Schuster is saying that the exact phrase was "wiped out." And furthermore, the note in question was in fact found by the authorities later. So, did Fitzgerald mean Libby "wiped out" Cheney's communication from his mind...or what?

In the meantime, Libby's defense attorneys are now saying that it was not Libby but Karl Rove himself who was at fault for smearing Valerie Plame. So, lots of fingerpointing.

UPDATE: The Libby defense is a bit more nuanced:

[Defense lawyer Ted Wells] told the jury that the White House went all out to defend [Karl] Rove against accusations he revealed Mrs. Wilson's identity, but did not protect Libby in the same way, leading Libby to suspect that he was being singled out for blame in the matter.

P.S. If you want another source of courtroom reporting, Firedoglake is the place to go.

Say what?

"Black," in our political and social reality, means those descended from West African slaves. Voluntary immigrants of African descent (even those descended from West Indian slaves) are just that, voluntary immigrants of African descent with markedly different outlooks on the role of race in their lives and in politics. At a minimum, it can't be assumed that a Nigerian cabdriver and a third-generation Harlemite have more in common than the fact a cop won't bother to make the distinction. They're both "black" as a matter of skin color and DNA, but only the Harlemite, for better or worse, is politically and culturally black, as we use the term.

My imagination was immediately captured by the idea of the World Wide Web nearly 14 years ago because I saw it as a way for anyone with talent to find their own audience without having to get the "approval" of a traditional publisher. This was years before the rise of mainstream peer-to-peer file sharing services like Napster and Kazaa.

In a fascinating article, Tim O'Reilly offers some insights into the role of authors and publishers in relation to online file sharing technologies:

Recently, a good friend of mine asked me what I thought of Barack Obama. This is a gentleman (my friend, not Obama) with whom I manned the barricades in the early 70's. But now he's become quite the middle-aged conservative. In any case, he's curious about Obama and asked me what I thought.

What follows is my reply.

You know the campaign will be brutal, almost (dare I say it) savage. I'm already hearing words like "Halfrican." And today I heard that the young Obama attended a Muslim madrassa and learned how to make suicide bomber belts in summer camp in Indonesia. Just goes to show you never can tell.

Seriously, can Obama take a punch? Or does he have a glass jaw? Is he another Bill Clinton or (shudder) another Bill Bradley? Too soon to tell.

In the end it may not matter so much: the Republicans will face a bloody turkey shoot in '08. You liked '06? You'll love the sequel!! If I'm a Congressional Democrat, I'll pass all the non-binding Iraq resolutions I want -- but I'll resist doing anything that gives my party ownership of the war. Instead, I'll hang it around Bush/McCain's neck (Edwards said it best: "McCain Escalation Plan.")

Yeah, the Dems may be luckiest in the choice of their opponent.

1. McCain? First of all, he may not even be a serious contender a year from now. I have the feeling his heart isn't in the whole "Republican base voter pander" thing. It's almost like he's making a hostage video.

2. Giuliani? He is SOOOOOO not going to be viable. The base will cough him up like a hairball. And his "leadership" on 9/11 was abysmal -- c'mon you put the NYC Emergency Operations Center in the WTC?? Freaking idiot -- they bombed it once already! What was he thinking? And please, Rudy, tell us who's on your client list. That'll be worth weeks of entertainment. And lastly, two words: "Bernard Kerik." I rest my case.

3. Mitt Romney? I remember George Romney. I lived in Michigan under George Romney. And Governor...yadda yadda yadda. Also, I'd like to hear him explain that underwear thing that Mormons wear. I'm just saying.

4. Sam Brownback? Please.

5. Mike Huckabee? The best of the lot. Hope he gets the nomination.

So there you have it. Of course these are just my opinions. I could be wrong.

But I doubt it.

Colbert on O'Reilly is a funnier show than O'Reilly on Colbert.

John Hodgman: For those of you who are unfamiliar with the program, American Idol is an old-fashioned screaming contest for children ... [and] at the end of the contest, the winning child is stoned to death, thus ensuring a prosperous coca cola harvest for the coming year. I, for one, am proud to live in a country where this is the number one television program...

Jon Stewart: I'm surprised at how seriously you're taking this. It's just a silly TV show.

Hodgman: Oh, is that all it is? American Idol received over 500 million votes last season. That makes it the world's fourth-largest democracy -- just after Indonesia and just ahead of Indonesian Idol.

Stewart: Is that true?

Hodgman: It might be.

The Founding Fathers agreed: the best way to keep religion and government strong was to insure that they ran on separate, parallel tracks.

Now, in Michigan, the Republican legislature has forced those tracks to converge and the result is a freaking train wreck:

Michigan's second-highest court says that anyone involved in an extramarital fling can be prosecuted for first-degree criminal sexual conduct, a felony punishable by up to life in prison.

"We cannot help but question whether the Legislature actually intended the result we reach here today," Judge William Murphy wrote in November for a unanimous Court of Appeals panel, "but we are curtailed by the language of the statute from reaching any other conclusion."

"Technically," he added, "any time a person engages in sexual penetration in an adulterous relationship, he or she is guilty of CSC I," the most serious sexual assault charge in Michigan's criminal code.

Read the details of this case -- it'll make your hair stand on end.

There are a few speakers who I always want to listen to if I have the chance (in no particular order):

• Robert Reich
• Christopher Hitchens
• Mario Cuomo
• Camille Paglia
• Arianna Huffington
• Bill Clinton
• Newt Gingrich
• Kristina Vanden Heuvel
• David Gergen

I don't always agree with them and often I am diametrically opposed to their positions; but they are always interesting, articulate and challenging.

Let's add Bill Moyers to the list:

(Cross posted on Daily Kos)

This is the headline this morning at MSNBC:

And, in a creative burst of linguistic irony, the first paragraph goes like this:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - At least 14 people were killed and 31 wounded in a series of car bombings in Baghdad on Thursday, the third day in a surge in insurgent violence in the Iraqi capital.

Well.

Let's get one thing straight:

Americans pride themselves for being a practical, businesslike people -- we revere the free market. So when the president, or any leader, declares "Follow me!" we, as Americans, instinctively ask ourselves four questions:

1. What are we being asked to buy?
2. What is it going to cost us?
3. Why should we believe him?
4. What's in it for us?

We might ask those questions unconsciously or, like old Ben Franklin, we might use a pencil and paper. However we do it, that's really all there is to it. We ask those questions reflexively as a kind of protocol before we buy anything. We buy cars this way, we buy soap this way, we buy anything and everything this way.

Perhaps you've never broken it down quite like this, but if you'll stop and give it some thought, you'll know I'm right. We even elect politicians this way. And we definitely buy wars this way. Even Andy Card knows that.

So they can call it a "surge," they can call it an "augmentation," they can call it "reinforcements." Hell, they can call it "a banana" for all I care.

But this time, whatever you call it, the answers to each of those four questions adds up to "no sale."

Jeffrey Feldman has posted a handy diary at Daily Kos that consolidates details of 6 different Democratic proposals that are alternatives to Bush's escalation. He's even got a poll on which one you prefer.

We all know that the very definition "Democratic Congressional Majority" means "herding cats." So it'll be difficult to offer one clear way out of Iraq any time soon.

But for those who think the Dems problem is that they have "no plan," well, think again. If anything, the exact opposite is true.

UPDATE: Rep. Lynn Wolsey's comprehensive proposal (to disengage in 6 months, reconstruct Iraq, and provide care for US veterans) seems to be carrying the day.

John Edwards' proposal is in second place:

I am opposed to President Bush's plan to send additional troops to Iraq. Congress must act now to block funding of Bush's escalation of the war — and demand that the President provide a plan to leave Iraq.

...but the last time I looked, Cheney's approval rating was 18%, so they're definitely going to have to scrape the bottom of the barrel:

Libby's attorneys say it's critical they know whether potential jurors view the vice president as credible. Two people who expressed doubts about that were dismissed from the jury pool Tuesday.

"I don't have the highest opinion of him," a young financial analyst said. "If I had to rank people as to credibility, I wouldn't put him at the top of the list."

He was dismissed, as was a young woman who said she was "completely without objectivity" about Bush administration officials who might be called to testify.

"There is nothing they could say or do that would make me think anything positive about them," the woman said moments before she was excused from the jury pool by U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton.

Talk about poisoning the jury pool.

He does that slouch-n-smirk thing. I hate that.

Sit up straight dammit! Didn't your mother teach you anything?

Some peoples' kids...

This is unprecedented.

Dianne Feinstein:

Recently, it came to my attention that the Department of Justice has asked several U.S. Attorneys from around the country to resign their positions -- some by the end of this month -- prior to the end of their terms not based on any allegation of misconduct. In other words, they are forced resignations.

I have also heard that the Attorney General plans to appoint interim replacements and potentially avoid Senate confirmation by leaving an interim U.S. Attorney in place for the remainder of the Bush administration.

[...]

The most well-known case involves a U.S. Attorney in Arkansas. Senators Pryor and Lincoln have raised significant concerns about how "Bud" Cummins was asked to resign and in his place the administration appointed their top lawyer in charge of political opposition research, Tim Griffin. I have been told Mr. Griffin is quite young, 37, and Senators Pryor and Lincoln have expressed concerns about press reports that have indicated Mr. Griffin has been a political operative for the RNC.

Why is Bush doing this? Because he can.

[T]he rumor has it -- and this is only rumor -- that U.S. Attorney Lam, who carried out the prosecution of the Duke Cunningham case, has other cases pending whereby, rumor has it, members of Congress have been subpoenaed. I have also been told that [her firing] interrupts the flow of the prosecution of these cases, to have the present U.S. attorney be forced to resign by the end of this month.

My hunch is that all of these firings are providing cover for one really, really, big case -- whatever that might be. Another hunch: it's a proactive move and it probably doesn't have a lot to do with Congressmen.

How did all of this happen? This is an interesting story. Apparently, when Congress reauthorized the PATRIOT Act last year, a provision was included that modified the statute that determines how long interim appointments are made. The PATRIOT Act Reauthorization changed the law to allow interim appointments to serve indefinitely rather than for a limited 120 days. Prior to the PATRIOT Act Reauthorization and the 1986 law, when a vacancy arose, the court nominated an interim U.S. Attorney until the Senate confirmed a Presidential nominee. The PATRIOT Act Reauthorization in 2006 removed the 120-day limit on that appointment, so now the Attorney General can nominate someone who goes in without any confirmation hearing by this Senate and serve as U.S. Attorney for the remainder of the President's term in office. This is a way, simply stated, of avoiding a Senate confirmation of a U.S. Attorney.

Ah. The Patriot Act. Emergency wartime powers...for the president, in perpetuity.

Only 735 days until Bush is out of office. Or not.

As many of you know, over the last few months I have been thinking hard about my plans for 2008. Running for the presidency is a profound decision - a decision no one should make on the basis of media hype or personal ambition alone - and so before I committed myself and my family to this race, I wanted to be sure that this was right for us and, more importantly, right for the country.

I certainly didn't expect to find myself in this position a year ago. But as I've spoken to many of you in my travels across the states these past months; as I've read your emails and read your letters; I've been struck by how hungry we all are for a different kind of politics.

So I've spent some time thinking about how I could best advance the cause of change and progress that we so desperately need.

The decisions that have been made in Washington these past six years, and the problems that have been ignored, have put our country in a precarious place. Our economy is changing rapidly, and that means profound changes for working people. Many of you have shared with me your stories about skyrocketing health care bills, the pensions you've lost and your struggles to pay for college for your kids. Our continued dependence on oil has put our security and our very planet at risk. And we're still mired in a tragic and costly war that should have never been waged.

But challenging as they are, it's not the magnitude of our problems that concerns me the most. It's the smallness of our politics. America's faced big problems before. But today, our leaders in Washington seem incapable of working together in a practical, common sense way. Politics has become so bitter and partisan, so gummed up by money and influence, that we can't tackle the big problems that demand solutions.

And that's what we have to change first.

We have to change our politics, and come together around our common interests and concerns as Americans.

This won't happen by itself. A change in our politics can only come from you; from people across our country who believe there's a better way and are willing to work for it.

Years ago, as a community organizer in Chicago, I learned that meaningful change always begins at the grassroots, and that engaged citizens working together can accomplish extraordinary things.

So even in the midst of the enormous challenges we face today, I have great faith and hope about the future - because I believe in you.

And that's why I wanted to tell you first that I'll be filing papers today to create a presidential exploratory committee. For the next several weeks, I am going to talk with people from around the country, listening and learning more about the challenges we face as a nation, the opportunities that lie before us, and the role that a presidential campaign might play in bringing our country together. And on February 10th, at the end of these decisions and in my home state of Illinois, I'll share my plans with my friends, neighbors and fellow Americans.

In the meantime, I want to thank all of you for your time, your suggestions, your encouragement and your prayers. And I look forward to continuing our conversation in the weeks and months to come.

Sincerely,
U.S. Senator Barack Obama

by Mark Adams

Al ain't out and Hillary ain't pissed, despite what otherwise sober voices think.

My advice, consistent with the five basic principles of the Progressive Netroots, is not to play Hillary's game. Don't be defensive and apologetic, insisting that no offense was intended, but ask rather what size shoe the former First Lady wears, because her lack of an affirmative, absolute rejection of the escalation of the war seems like a perfect fit to John Edwards' call to stop the madness.

Any apologetic response, a "hey, I didn't mean you personally," defense, will come off weak and mitigate the importance of Edward's message.

"We cannot remain silent as our nation engages in one of history's most cruel and senseless wars. During these days of human travail we must encourage creative dissenters. We need them because the thunder of their fearless voices will be the only sound stronger than the blasts of bombs and the clamor of war hysteria."

- Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

by Mark Adams

The General directs us to remember the wisdom of MLK. I believe that there is no coincidence that the theme, the three-word slogan that launched John Edwards' candidacy for president last month can be found in Martin Luther King, Jr.'s speech at Manhattan's Riverside Church.

There's more....

We've quoted the Times tech writer David Pogue in discussing the iPhone. Turns out Pogue has more than a little Tom Lehrer in him -- he can sing and he's funny!

Wonder which one gets more coverage?

• Iran confirms U.S. arrest of five Iranian consulate staff in Iraq

• Suspected Greek militants fire rocket at U.S. embassy

As of Friday morning, Google news yields 1,944 hits on "Iran embassy Iraq," while "American embassy Greece" yields 343 hits. That makes sense -- the Iraq event happened Thursday, while the Greece event was Friday. I'll try to check back periodically.

Assif Mandvi: "Obama is young and handsome and charismatic. But you cannot deny that his last name is only one tiny consonant away from the first name of one of our sworn enemies. In this age of terror, can we really afford to take that chance?"

This is...incredible.

The aspect ratio in this following video is messed up, but the glimpse you get of this device is breathtaking.

P.S. Do you think it'll run that fast on Cingular's slowish network?

Man. I want one of these.

(Cross posted at Daily Kos)

Bush speaks! And there you have it: The Iraq war is "the decisive ideological struggle of our time."

Well. That's pretty serious talk. And I'll take it at face value.

That said, if I'm a Congressional Democrat, here's what I would do:

I would immediately draft a package of three related bills that accomplish the following:

1. End all off-budget funding of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
2. Roll back all existing tax cuts for people making, say, over $200 thousand in wages and passive income, and
3. Renew (or not) the original Authorization of the Use of Military Force (AUMF).

The first two bills should be designed to be "revenue neutral," i.e., the $100 billion Bush wants for this next round of war-funding should come out of the budget to be funded by increased revenues from rolling back the tax cuts. You could make the rollback cut-off point slide from the top-down as far as you need to raise the necessary funds. You'd try to preserve middle class tax cuts as much as possible, but -- hey -- it's not like we got so much in the first place, you know?

You could call the package of three bills by some exotic name like The Shared National Sacrifice Act of 2007, or The Protection of Future Generations' Prosperity & Security Act.

I should think all Democrats (including the Blue Dogs) would vote for these bills as would all non-Southern Republicans. You might even get up to a veto-proof majority. Not that Bush cares of course.

But heading into 2008, this would have the effect of showing that Democrats can show some leadership, some "bipartisanship," some vision, some responsibility, some sensitivity. It would show that Democrats are not just going to sit around and be blamed for losing the war.

Do it now and ram it through. Let's have a debate, baby. Congress controls the purse-strings. So let's talk about funding this war in the real world.

Not sure I'm going to watch Bush tonight. I mean, I'm mildly curious in the same way you might be if you're surfing channels and you come upon a scene of a chimpanzee from Animal Planet jumping up and down and flinging feces around his cage. You might stop for a moment. But other than that? Enh.

Hunter put it best:

And so here's the problem with blogging, in '07. It's going to take a superhuman effort to even take any of this nonsense seriously. It's not a question of "rebutting", or "disagreeing", or God forbid "contradicting". It's not a matter of "pointing out inconsistencies of" or "offering contrary evidence to". It's not mere disagreement, anymore.

It's more of a question of even being able to take any of these political voices seriously at all -- even seriously enough to mock.

Only 741 days to go.

P.S. Speaking of 2007: This month marks the beginning of my sixth year of blogging. I've kept at it this long because I've never been at a loss for words and I have a pretty high opinion of my, well, opinions. The fact that I've attracted a small audience along the way is amazing. But more than that: the fact that I've made friends with many of you is really pretty gratifying.

So if you've come this far with me, I want to say this: I hope you get one-tenth the satisfaction reading this as I do in writing it. Thanks again and I hope to talk to you soon.

by Mark Adams

Depending on how the GOP field shakes out, this description of Governor Mitt Romney's various stances on abortion could come in handy.

He had moved back and forth on the choice issue. I said he isn't pro-choice or anti-choice. He's multiple choice. ~~Ted Kennedy

What a nasty thing to say about a Mormon.

Apple's iPhone: Now that's what I'm talkin about!

UPDATE: David Pogue has a hands-on review. Verdict: way cool.

Gizmodo hands-on review. Also favorable.

The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame unveiled its 2007 class of inductees Monday:

• R.E.M. -- check.
• Van Halen -- check.
• Grandmaster Flash -- check.
• The Ronettes -- check.
• Patti Smith -- check.

Where's Iggy and the Stooges?

Monday’s announcement leaves Iggy Pop and his groundbreaking Michigan band 0-for-6 at the rock hall. Six times nominated by the committee that crafts the annual ballot; six times rejected by the 600-some voters -- critics, historians, industry figures -- who select the inductees.

[...]

It isn’t just hometown parochialism to rue the omission of the Stooges, along with their 1960s contemporaries and fellow Detroit rabble-rousers the MC5: Both groups are widely -- and zealously -- heralded as the founding fathers of punk and heavy metal, and many of their followers are already enshrined in the solemn upper room at the hall’s Cleveland museum.

Enshrined? Solemn? Museum? No wonder Iggy isn't there.

Someone yanked Iggy's pull-rope in the mid-sixties and he's been snarling in fury and excitement ever since.

(HT to Miss Julie)

by Mark Adams

"That's Bullshit!"

John Edwards, never afraid to speak his mind, or truth to power.

UPDATE (from Ara): Here is the Olbermann video Edwards G.A. Roach is referring to: "The Beginning of the End of America."

OLBERMANN: Habeas corpus? Gone. The Geneva Conventions? Optional. The moral force we shined outwards to the world as an eternal beacon, and inwards at ourselves as an eternal protection? Snuffed out. These things you have done, Mr. Bush, they would be "the beginning of the end of America."

by Mark Adams

It's official, the administration is completely out of cute ways to imitate Orwellian Double-speak, and are now just outright plagiarizing the master -- without even the attempt at subtle subterfuge.

From today's PressSpeak:

Q Let me follow up on David's question, then, I think -- and that is this is the number one problem, according to your commanders -- sectarian violence. So does the President want -- does the President feel that's a main mission of the U.S. troops now, to --

MR. SNOW: Well, as I said, I understand that, but to answer that then gets people on the train of, does this mean you're going to plus up, you're going to plus down, you're going to move in, you're going to move out --

Q I don't mean plus in, plus down.

MR. SNOW: -- and I'm not going to get into any of these --

(Hat Tip: KOS Diarist, Walt Starr: We won't surge, we're gonna "Double Plus Up")

Wait for it:

"Good evening my fellow Americans. Iraq, 9/11, terrorists, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, terrorists, terrorists, terrorists, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, terrorists, terrorists, terrorists, terrorists, terrorists, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11. God bless America."

Whatever you do, don't make this into a drinking game.

P.S. Seriously, Bush will never end this war because then he'd have to relinquish his "wartime powers."

And people wonder why the US auto industry is going down the tubes...

Ford Motor Company has announced that it will be offering a new digital dashboard control system on 12 of its 2008 vehicles and expanding that across their line as an option for the 2009 model year.

The system, unveiled at the North American International Auto Show on Sunday, is called "Sync" and has been developed in partnership with Microsoft.

This reminds me of a joke I love to tell. It goes like this:

Three engineers are riding in a car -- a chemical engineer, an electrical engineer and a computer engineer. Then car breaks down. The chemical engineer says, "It's the gas." The electrical engineer says, "It's the spark plugs." The computer engineer says, "Look, I don't know what it is, but here's what we do: let's all get out of the car and get back in again."

P.S. I told this joke to a roomful of lawyers. They all looked at me and one of them said, "Then what happened?"

Bush got it wrong in the beginning when he didn't send more troops to Iraq; now he's about to get it wrong again.

Robert Novak:

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who has gone public with criticism of President Bush's Iraq policy, is caustic in private about the proposed ''surge'' of 30,000 additional U.S. troops.

Powell noted that the recent congressional delegation to Iraq headed by Sen. John McCain heard from combat officers that they wanted more troops.

''The colonels will always say they need more troops,'' the retired general says. ''That's why we have generals.''

A footnote: Senior Republican senators are trying to get word to the president that any troop surge would be dead on arrival in Congress.

Yeah, I know: we're not big fans of Novak nor Powell (but for different reasons). That said, other sources have detailed Powell's disdain for Bush's war planning and execution.

P.S. For the record, here's the Powell Doctrine, one more time

• Military force should only be used if there is a clear risk to national security
• The force used should be overwhelming
• Get, and hold, the support of the American people
• The operation must have a clear exit strategy.

Additional points here.

by Mark Adams

Here's your sign:

(Hat Tip: Cindy)

by Mark Adams

In the sphere of juvenile internet tricks, this one ranks near the bottom. It's silly, transparent, and of course . . . THIS MEANS WAR!

Huff Post: Click On edwards08.com And You Go To hillaryclinton.com...

John Edwards' '08 website is johnedwards.com. But the campaign didn't buy edwards08.com. Hillary Clinton did. Click on edwards08.com and you end with Hillary Clinton.

Ok folks, we need a mature, non-whiney, appropriate response to this outrage. Might I humbly suggest we sign her up for free samples of male enhancement products, or a subscription to FHM?

UPDATE: They changed it to re-direct you to the Democratic Party.

I guess she couldn't take the heat.....she never was good in the kitchen. Her cookie recipe blew.
(HT: Joe4Gov at Digg.) and LisaRenee at AOG.)

Maybe I should send her some flowers, or a nice fruit basket....or some anti-aging cream.

Howard Fineman:

Democratic strategists say it would be politically foolish to help Bush by crafting a bipartisan war policy. "Why should we try to come up with a compromise policy with him?" asks Mike Ward, a former congressman who was back at the Capitol for opening-day festivities. "If we do that, we take ownership of the war. Why would we want to do that?" Only one reason I could think of: to end the war faster so that the troops could come home.

Normally I'd be all for doing the right thing and devil take the hindmost. But the fact is, the Dems cannot end this war in any meaningful sense of the phrase. The president is the commander in chief and, shy of cutting off funding, the legislative branch cannot prevent him from having his war.

The best thing is for the Dems to hold all the hearings and investigations; insist that war funding be a part of the normal budget process; and pass bills like Leahy's War Profiteering Prevention Act. In other words, hang the war around Bush's (and McCain's) neck and make it THE issue in the '08 elections.

UPDATE: Joe Biden weighs in:

Sen. Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said it would be a "tragic mistake" if Bush chooses to increase troops. But Biden, D-Del., said cutting off funds was not an option.

"As a practical matter there is no way to say this is going to be stopped," Biden said regarding a troop increase, unless enough congressional Republicans join Democrats in convincing Bush the strategy is wrong.

Biden added that it probably would be an unconstitutional violation of separation of powers if Democrats were to block Bush's efforts as commander in chief after Congress had voted to authorize going to war.

"It's unconstitutional to say, you can go, but we're going to micromanage," Biden said.

Unconstitutional? No. Bad politics? Perhaps. Micromanaging? Yes.

UPDATE 2: Josh Marshall (using more than my seven words) agrees:

Biden here is his reliably muddle-headed self. Congress can declare war (or, in this case, resolve to authorize the use of force) but not reverse itself later? Congress cannot redline certain defense expenditures?

Giving Biden the benefit of the doubt, what I think he is trying to say is that it would be utterly unproductive for Democrats in Congress to get bogged down in the tactical minutia of our Iraq policy. I completely agree. To surge or not to surge is really not the issue. But it would be nice to see a Democratic presidential contender better able to articulate that notion.

UPDATE 3: Murtha weighs in, taking a harder line than me, and basically telling Chris Matthews that Biden et. al. are full of it:

by Mark Adams

I used to think that the wind blowing on Lake Erie was only good for sailing and making that notorious lake-effect snow in Cleveland and Buffalo.

BruceMcF explains how wrong I was, and why we in Ohio and the other Great Lake States are lucky not only live next to the greatest source of fresh water in the world, but also one of the most accessible clean energy resources one can imagine.

Just take a look, and tell me it doesn't make you think about John Edwards' "Apollo Program for Energy Independence" in a whole new light -- that there are amazing possibilities -- and those possibilities will change the world.

As soon as we take the country back from the corporatists, neo-cons and big-oil men.

by Mark Adams

A war of choice cannot rest on one asscheek alone. ~~ Atrios

Here's my dilemma. Is the inestimable Digby right? Must we get/stay ugly, mad, and fight the Republicans with every ounce of our being -- and play as dirty as them?

I realize it is churlish of us liberals to attempt to defend ourselves from this kind of bad faith and even worse for us to lose our Gary Cooper cool. But, you know, when you push people far enough and hard enough they start to fight for their survival. The level of vitriol and hate emanating from the right --- and encouraged by Republicans leaders of all stripes --- has been overwhelming. These past twelve years alone have been characterized by smears, toxic rhetoric, impeachments, abuse of power, stolen elections, power mad governance, corruption and ineptitude. So yes, we're angry --- but more importantly, we are fearful for our country.

Until Republicans admit what they have wrought and recognize that their trash talking and boot-to-the-throat mode of fetid politics are responsible for our state today, then for the good of the country, I hope the left remains angry and battles them back with everything they've got.

Or do we listen to our inner Gary Cooper, wearing a Duncan Black Hat, taking aim at wanker de jure, Dean Barnett, at Hugh Hewitt's?

[Barnett's] Conclusion: We Need to Bomb the Everliving Shit out of These Ungrateful Little Ill-Mannered Foreign Peckerheads.

No, he really says that. The only answer, as it has always been, is to stamp out that ferocious, pitiless savagery ferociously and savagely, without pity.

At the end of this war, Iraq must necessarily be composed of people who always wanted to live in peace and the one-time enemies of peace who have come to realize they have no other choice but to live in peace. How much killing will this take? That will depend on how many enemies of peace there are and how determined they are to live in a state of war.

Though he does add, 'One thing's for certain - the more resolute we are, the less killing there will be.' Indeed. The more people we kill, the fewer people we will, uh, have to kill.

The reason this whole Iraqi adventure was always doomed was precisely this inability to decide if we were out for retribution or justice, revenge or charity, occupation or liberation. A war of choice cannot rest on one asscheek alone.

Is wrong simply wrong? Reading Atrios' critique of the wingnut tactics which got us into the Iraq mess tends to support the idea that such bahavior is exactly the opposite of what we are, what we believe. Fighting barbarism with barbarism is anathama to civilized behavior.

This is what the GOP warmongers have reduced us to, our basest animal instincts, fighting them here, so we don't have to send our children to fight for them over there.