Okay, so I'll freely admit that this came from a bulletin post on MySpace. It may not be ENTIRELY factually true, but, it's clever and shows the messed up logic that is the core of Republican beliefs. I'd love to see some Republicans squirm in their seat to justify all of this.
-Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.
-Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him, and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.
-Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is Communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.
-The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is
enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.
-A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.
-The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches, while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.
-If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.
-A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.
-Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy, but providing health care to all Americans is
socialism.
-HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.
-Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.
-A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense, but a president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.
-Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.
-The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving record is none of our business.
-Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.
-Supporting "Executive Privilege" for every Republican ever born, who will be born or who might be born (in perpetuity).
-What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is
irrelevant.
-Support hunters who shoot their friends and blame them for wearing orange vests similar to those worn by the quail.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Bush Administration Non-Responsive to Waxman
This is from today's Congress Daily:
One of the largest motivating factors that drove voters to the polls in the midterm election was corruption. While Waxman is trying to find the truth, Bush appointees are clearly trying to stall that pursuit. Perhaps they are hoping they can wait it out for the next two years. Whatever their motivation, it is despicable and disrespectful to Congress.
If I were Chairman Waxman, I would subpoena the head of the White House Council on Environmental Equality and ask him where all of the missing documents are. Then I would tell him that the hearing was finished, that it would be rescheduled, and that he best do what it takes to provide the Committee with the requested documents before he showed his face before Congress again. Otherwise, he should face being found in contempt of Congress.
Enough playing around. This Administration has had a free pass for six years. There's no time for monkey business here. Only time for the people's business. Let's get to it.
Here is a video from today's hearing where Chairman Waxman reviews some of the edits that Bush appointees made to the environmental reports issued. I love the part where he points out that the Chief of Staff that suggested many of the edits was not a scientist, but a former lawyer for the Petroleum industry. Classic Bush.
Panel Steamed Over Withheld DocumentsThis is not just mildly annoying. It's completely outrageous. I thought it was outrageous when they ignored Waxman's requests when he was the Ranking Minority Member of the Committee. Now he's the Chairman and that kind of behavior is unacceptable. The nerve of this Administration to ignore requests of the House Oversight and Government Reform is vexxing to me.
The Bush administration's incomplete response to a House committee's request for documents related to a hearing today on global climate change is leaving lawmakers and staff from both parties warm under the collar.
House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Waxman requested documents from the White House Council on Environmental Quality, hoping to use them to underscore the suggestion that the administration has a habit of editing scientific reports to downplay the effects of global warming.
By presstime Monday, documents that were requested as recently as last week and as far back as six months ago had not been provided to the committee.
One of the largest motivating factors that drove voters to the polls in the midterm election was corruption. While Waxman is trying to find the truth, Bush appointees are clearly trying to stall that pursuit. Perhaps they are hoping they can wait it out for the next two years. Whatever their motivation, it is despicable and disrespectful to Congress.
If I were Chairman Waxman, I would subpoena the head of the White House Council on Environmental Equality and ask him where all of the missing documents are. Then I would tell him that the hearing was finished, that it would be rescheduled, and that he best do what it takes to provide the Committee with the requested documents before he showed his face before Congress again. Otherwise, he should face being found in contempt of Congress.
Enough playing around. This Administration has had a free pass for six years. There's no time for monkey business here. Only time for the people's business. Let's get to it.
Here is a video from today's hearing where Chairman Waxman reviews some of the edits that Bush appointees made to the environmental reports issued. I love the part where he points out that the Chief of Staff that suggested many of the edits was not a scientist, but a former lawyer for the Petroleum industry. Classic Bush.
More McCain Flip Flops
In an earlier post, I highlighted some of the flip flops of John McCain. This new video, produced by Robert Greenwald at Brave New Films is pretty hard hitting on McCain. It's a part of an educational website they have launched: http://www.therealmccain.com/.
Congrats to Robert and his team on such a creative video. I hope people take notice that the Straight Talk Express has has a derailment of massive proportion. It's actually pretty sad to see how embroiled he has become in so much double talk that he doesn't seem to remember what he believes in anymore.
Congrats to Robert and his team on such a creative video. I hope people take notice that the Straight Talk Express has has a derailment of massive proportion. It's actually pretty sad to see how embroiled he has become in so much double talk that he doesn't seem to remember what he believes in anymore.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Jane Fonda, Fox News, and the Partridge Family
Fox News anchor John Gibson just had child star Danny Bonduce on his show to talk about Jane Fonda's presence at the anti-war rally and march in Washington on Saturday. What a crock to give this guy a microphone! Did anyone catch his reality show "Breaking Bonaduce"? I hope you didn't waste the time to hear his countless, endless drunken rants.
Check out this video. I should say up front that I don't know anything about The Resistance Manifesto or the guy interviewing him. But, about a minute and a half into it, Bonaduce loses it. But then again, it becomes instantly clear why Fox News puts him in front of a camera.
Check out this video. I should say up front that I don't know anything about The Resistance Manifesto or the guy interviewing him. But, about a minute and a half into it, Bonaduce loses it. But then again, it becomes instantly clear why Fox News puts him in front of a camera.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
March in Washington
Yesterday, I participated in the Rally/March against the Iraq War. It's really only the second March I've participated in. The first one was the March for Women's Lives in 2004. So, it's been two and a half years since my last one.
There were a couple of differences. First, the dynamic was different. The March for Women's Lives was much larger and much more professionally done. Given, they had more time and a larger budget with with to stage such a large event. They had about a million people. If I had to guess, there were about a hundred thousand at the march yesterday. And, that is a great turnout. I don't mean to compare the turnout for the two. Yesterday's march was organized on a shoestring budget by a handful of dedicated activists in the span of a few weeks. By all accounts, it was a huge success.
But, I want to say a couple things about it. First, it was definitely full of speakers from the far left. Maybe the middle left folks weren't invited to speak. There has been some criticism that no Senators showed up and only six or so Members of Congress. But, at the same time, the speakers included some clearly anti-Israel folks. That threw me for a loop. I know we're largely pro-Israel in this country and there is probably a lack of point of view from the Palestinian side. But, to give a prominent speaking voice to someone so clearly anti-Israel bothers me. I just wanted to say that.
I'm a novice at anti-war demonstrations and will probably remain a novice. Hopefully, anyway. But, I think it's a bad idea to let smack be talked about Israel unless you're going to allow someone to talk about all the grievances that they have against the Palestinians. Then again....how 'bout we just let the discourse remain on how America is involved in a war we have no business being in? That's probably a better idea.
The criticism being said, I had a great time. The most striking thing that I noticed was the diversity of people present. Young and old, rich and poor, all kinds of races and cultures, and liberals and moderates. Heck, maybe there were even a few Republicans present! (I did see a fur coat!) These are the faces of our progressive movement. We are like herding cats, yet we always manage to come together for a cause. Not everyone there had the same opinions on the war. We didn't all agree with every speaker. But, we all agree on one thing. We need a change of course on Iraq policy.
Do you realize we went from "Stay the course" to "Democrats are cut and run"? The Bush Administration has put more thought into rhetoric than actual strategic policy. How awful is that?
There were a couple of differences. First, the dynamic was different. The March for Women's Lives was much larger and much more professionally done. Given, they had more time and a larger budget with with to stage such a large event. They had about a million people. If I had to guess, there were about a hundred thousand at the march yesterday. And, that is a great turnout. I don't mean to compare the turnout for the two. Yesterday's march was organized on a shoestring budget by a handful of dedicated activists in the span of a few weeks. By all accounts, it was a huge success.
But, I want to say a couple things about it. First, it was definitely full of speakers from the far left. Maybe the middle left folks weren't invited to speak. There has been some criticism that no Senators showed up and only six or so Members of Congress. But, at the same time, the speakers included some clearly anti-Israel folks. That threw me for a loop. I know we're largely pro-Israel in this country and there is probably a lack of point of view from the Palestinian side. But, to give a prominent speaking voice to someone so clearly anti-Israel bothers me. I just wanted to say that.
I'm a novice at anti-war demonstrations and will probably remain a novice. Hopefully, anyway. But, I think it's a bad idea to let smack be talked about Israel unless you're going to allow someone to talk about all the grievances that they have against the Palestinians. Then again....how 'bout we just let the discourse remain on how America is involved in a war we have no business being in? That's probably a better idea.
The criticism being said, I had a great time. The most striking thing that I noticed was the diversity of people present. Young and old, rich and poor, all kinds of races and cultures, and liberals and moderates. Heck, maybe there were even a few Republicans present! (I did see a fur coat!) These are the faces of our progressive movement. We are like herding cats, yet we always manage to come together for a cause. Not everyone there had the same opinions on the war. We didn't all agree with every speaker. But, we all agree on one thing. We need a change of course on Iraq policy.
Do you realize we went from "Stay the course" to "Democrats are cut and run"? The Bush Administration has put more thought into rhetoric than actual strategic policy. How awful is that?
Thursday, January 25, 2007
"Hacking Democracy" MUST WATCH
I saw this documentary late one night right after the 2006 Midterm Elections. The issue of electronic voting is quickly becoming an incredibly important issue for me. This video is just over half an hour. So, watch it at home one night or during your lunch hour. (We can't have you destroying American productivity!) But, PLEASE watch it. Don't just watch it, forward a link to this post to as many people as you can.
Here's the bottom line. We're giving tens of millions of dollars of contracts to Diebold without them even having to prove to people that they are safe from hackers. This documentary was earth shattering to me. If we can get a critical mass of people to care about this issue, we can do something about it!
We should start in Florida's 13th Congressional District, where Democrat Christine Jennings was screwed out of victory because Diebold's machines "lost" 18,000 votes in a race where she lost by less than 400.
Here is the video that you MUST watch:
Here's the bottom line. We're giving tens of millions of dollars of contracts to Diebold without them even having to prove to people that they are safe from hackers. This documentary was earth shattering to me. If we can get a critical mass of people to care about this issue, we can do something about it!
We should start in Florida's 13th Congressional District, where Democrat Christine Jennings was screwed out of victory because Diebold's machines "lost" 18,000 votes in a race where she lost by less than 400.
Here is the video that you MUST watch:
State of the Union Thoughts
I intended to do a comprehensive analysis of the President's SOTU speech. But, yesterday was largely taken by job networking activities. So, I'm going to just give you a few of my immediate impressions.
First, this President must be spending sometime with Marion Barry (if you know what I mean) if he thinks he can balance the budget in five years, WITHOUT RAISING TAXES. This is impossible. He wants to escalate the War in Iraq as well as increasing the overall size of the military by nearly 100,000. Early analysis says that discretionary spending would have to be cut by forty percent in order to achieve a balanced budget. I would also like to point out that the Republican Congress and this Republican President have driven our Federal budget into the largest deficits in history. It is simply amazing that he could stand before the Congress and the country and propose such a ridiculous idea.
(Let's not also forget that in the same speech, he already proposed raising taxes on employees who are provided great health plans by their employers. Read: Unions)
On a related point, others have correctly pointed out that the War(s) that we are engaged in presently is the only time in history that the President has not asked the American people to make a sacrifice to fund the War. This is particularly amazing to me because when you point out the fiscal disaster created by Republicans, they point to the War on Terror as the reason. However, instead of following historic precedent and raising the funds for a War, they cut taxes. Of course nearly 90% of their taxcuts went to the wealthiest 1% of our citizens.
So, when the President presents his budget to Congress, let's be wary of how the heck he's going to achieve balance in five years without gutting spending on domestic issues like education and healthcare.
Another point that really got me was his proposal to end earmarks. Thanks, Mr. President, but Speaker Pelosi already beat you to the point. By a couple of months. By the way, has anyone remembered that the Democrats are stuck passing LAST YEAR'S appropriations bills because the Republicans don't know how to govern?
And on Iraq. Jeez. This President is seriously delusional when it comes to Iraq. I'll leave it at that.
Below, I'm posting a response from one of my new favorite Members of Congress, Rep. Louise Slaughter, Chairwoman of the Rules Committee. You've got to love that Southern Accent from a NY Congresswoman!
First, this President must be spending sometime with Marion Barry (if you know what I mean) if he thinks he can balance the budget in five years, WITHOUT RAISING TAXES. This is impossible. He wants to escalate the War in Iraq as well as increasing the overall size of the military by nearly 100,000. Early analysis says that discretionary spending would have to be cut by forty percent in order to achieve a balanced budget. I would also like to point out that the Republican Congress and this Republican President have driven our Federal budget into the largest deficits in history. It is simply amazing that he could stand before the Congress and the country and propose such a ridiculous idea.
(Let's not also forget that in the same speech, he already proposed raising taxes on employees who are provided great health plans by their employers. Read: Unions)
On a related point, others have correctly pointed out that the War(s) that we are engaged in presently is the only time in history that the President has not asked the American people to make a sacrifice to fund the War. This is particularly amazing to me because when you point out the fiscal disaster created by Republicans, they point to the War on Terror as the reason. However, instead of following historic precedent and raising the funds for a War, they cut taxes. Of course nearly 90% of their taxcuts went to the wealthiest 1% of our citizens.
So, when the President presents his budget to Congress, let's be wary of how the heck he's going to achieve balance in five years without gutting spending on domestic issues like education and healthcare.
Another point that really got me was his proposal to end earmarks. Thanks, Mr. President, but Speaker Pelosi already beat you to the point. By a couple of months. By the way, has anyone remembered that the Democrats are stuck passing LAST YEAR'S appropriations bills because the Republicans don't know how to govern?
And on Iraq. Jeez. This President is seriously delusional when it comes to Iraq. I'll leave it at that.
Below, I'm posting a response from one of my new favorite Members of Congress, Rep. Louise Slaughter, Chairwoman of the Rules Committee. You've got to love that Southern Accent from a NY Congresswoman!
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
The Real State of the Union
It's just after midnight. I've been spending time reading over the President's speech, listening to commentary, and listening to the ideas of fellow bloggers. Throughout tomorrow, I'll take different parts of the President's speech and tell you why his ideas are dumb, recycled, and generally bad for the country.
In the meantime, I'm pasting below the Democratic response to the President's version of the State of our Union. It's given by newly elected Virginia Senator Jim Webb. I understand he wrote the speech himself. It's well done. Chris Matthews said on MSNBC that it is one of the few instances in history in which the Response to the State of the Union was better than the President's speech. I mean, it's so good, that people are starting to chant 'Webb for Prez'!
In the meantime, I'm pasting below the Democratic response to the President's version of the State of our Union. It's given by newly elected Virginia Senator Jim Webb. I understand he wrote the speech himself. It's well done. Chris Matthews said on MSNBC that it is one of the few instances in history in which the Response to the State of the Union was better than the President's speech. I mean, it's so good, that people are starting to chant 'Webb for Prez'!
Monday, January 22, 2007
Pull out the Flip Flops for McCain
John McCain is all over the place on the War in Iraq. Take a moment to visit ThinkProgress, which is the blog of the Center for American Progress. They have a scoop on an article to be published tomorrow in a new Capitol Hill newspaper, in which McCain blasts Cheney over Iraq strategy.
Basically, McCain was the original supporter of escalating the war in Iraq, once proposing many more troops than the 21,500 being deployed. Now, as the popularity of the war reaches drastic new lows, McCain is changing his position quicker than Cheney returns calls to oil execs. The Arizona Senator knows there is no viable exit strategy in Iraq and is making early moves to distance himself so it doesn't doom his nascent Presidential bid.
He had a dismal performance on Meet the Press yesterday. I'm a clip of the interview below. Even in his remarks yesterday, he is praising the escalation and questioning those who don't. Yet, his comments attacking Cheney is all about his mishandling of the war. Would the real John McCain please stand up?
On a separate issue, this video clip is directly responding to an add that MoveOn is running in Iowa and NH. That ad is a part of the video clip. In his response, McCain slams 527's and claims to have tried to get rid of them. 527's did not exist until the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act became law in 2002. From the Washington Post on April 6, 2006:
There was an effort to pretty much repeal the major provisions of McCain-Feingold:
So, yes, they tried to get rid of 527's. But, at the same time, they tried to repeal the law banning unlimited contributions to the National Parties. What a crock.
Yet another flip flop for Senator McCain. This guy must be losing it.
Basically, McCain was the original supporter of escalating the war in Iraq, once proposing many more troops than the 21,500 being deployed. Now, as the popularity of the war reaches drastic new lows, McCain is changing his position quicker than Cheney returns calls to oil execs. The Arizona Senator knows there is no viable exit strategy in Iraq and is making early moves to distance himself so it doesn't doom his nascent Presidential bid.
He had a dismal performance on Meet the Press yesterday. I'm a clip of the interview below. Even in his remarks yesterday, he is praising the escalation and questioning those who don't. Yet, his comments attacking Cheney is all about his mishandling of the war. Would the real John McCain please stand up?
On a separate issue, this video clip is directly responding to an add that MoveOn is running in Iowa and NH. That ad is a part of the video clip. In his response, McCain slams 527's and claims to have tried to get rid of them. 527's did not exist until the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act became law in 2002. From the Washington Post on April 6, 2006:
The 527 committees, named for a section of the tax law, are tax-exempt rganizations that use voter mobilization and issue-based ads to influence federal elections. They grew in importance after the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance law barred federal candidates and national parties from accepting unlimited donations from individuals, unions and corporations.
There was an effort to pretty much repeal the major provisions of McCain-Feingold:
The House approved campaign finance legislation last night that would benefit Republicans by placing strict caps on contributions to nonprofit committees that spent heavily in the last election while removing limits on political parties' spending coordinated with candidates.
The bill passed 218 to 209 in a virtual party-line vote.
Lifting party spending limits would aid Republican candidates because the GOP has consistently raised far more money than the Democratic Party. Similarly, barring "527" committees from accepting large unregulated contributions known as "soft money" would disadvantage Democrats, whose candidates received a disproportionate share of the $424 million spent by nonprofit committees in 2003-2004.
So, yes, they tried to get rid of 527's. But, at the same time, they tried to repeal the law banning unlimited contributions to the National Parties. What a crock.
Yet another flip flop for Senator McCain. This guy must be losing it.
FBI: We should have done more on Foley
Really? No kidding. But then again, hindsight is 20/20. And to be fair, they weren't the first folks to flub the whole thing.
Here's a link to the ABC News Blotter where they once again claim to have broken the story. But, we all know now that they didn't. In fact, they sat on the emails for months doing nothing about it. They probably would have sat on it indefinitely had they not seen Wonkette slamming the emails I posted on Stop Sex Predators.
At least the Inspector General of the FBI has acknowledged the mishandling of the emails that were submitted to them by CREW, but it's half-hearted.
What I really wonder is if the FBI agent backed off from looking further into the emails because they were from a Congressman. That is a question that should have been answered in the IG's report.
I know from my own experience that the main stream media held the bar higher because Foley was a member of Congress. They seemed to be looking for a "smoking gun." ABC News didn't cover the original emails on their nightly news, only their website. Once they got the explicit instant messages, they finally reported widely on the scandal. That is all a part of the 'Culture of Washington' that I have talked about so much. For the media, it's mostly the 'CYA' mode of operation.
It's a good thing the blogosphere is around to be the true "fourth estate" of modern media.
Here's a link to the ABC News Blotter where they once again claim to have broken the story. But, we all know now that they didn't. In fact, they sat on the emails for months doing nothing about it. They probably would have sat on it indefinitely had they not seen Wonkette slamming the emails I posted on Stop Sex Predators.
At least the Inspector General of the FBI has acknowledged the mishandling of the emails that were submitted to them by CREW, but it's half-hearted.
While finding no official misconduct on the part of FBI officials, the inspector general said "the e-mails provided enough troubling indications on their face" to have warranted follow-up steps.
Instead, the inspector general found, the supervisory agent decided there was no evidence of criminal wrongdoing and "placed the e-mails in her in box and took no further action" even though she found the e-mails "odd."
What I really wonder is if the FBI agent backed off from looking further into the emails because they were from a Congressman. That is a question that should have been answered in the IG's report.
I know from my own experience that the main stream media held the bar higher because Foley was a member of Congress. They seemed to be looking for a "smoking gun." ABC News didn't cover the original emails on their nightly news, only their website. Once they got the explicit instant messages, they finally reported widely on the scandal. That is all a part of the 'Culture of Washington' that I have talked about so much. For the media, it's mostly the 'CYA' mode of operation.
It's a good thing the blogosphere is around to be the true "fourth estate" of modern media.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
