What an embarrassment to the USA the Republican Party has become.
From FOX News -- February 27, 2010:
"Unemployment Benefits to Expire Sunday After Senate Stalemates On Extension
Unemployment insurance and COBRA benefits will expire Sunday for millions of voters because the Senate was unable this week to pass a short-term extension, a failure that reflects partly the partisan gridlock that has stalled the Democratic legislative agenda and partly the Senate rules that allows one lawmaker to block legislation.
The latest stalemate produced a rare, late-night partisan floor brawl between two scrappy senators.
In the red corner is Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., whose decision not to seek re-election this year has made him a wild card. He has blocked a $10 billion bill that extends the benefits for 30 days because he wants to lay out how the extension will be paid for, preferably with unallocated stimulus funds.
In the blue corner is Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., who, along with other Democrats, told Bunning no way because the extension is an emergency and shouldn’t come with any offsets.
The battle lasted for hours Thursday when Durbin sought unanimous consent, a move that forced Bunning to object each time to uphold his filibuster.
“It is unthinkable, unforgivable that we would cut off unemployment insurance payments to these people, that we would cut off COBRA payments, which helps them to pay for their health insurance while they’re unemployed,” he said. “And yet, that’s what’s going to happen Sunday night. It’s because the senator from Kentucky has objected to extending unemployment insurance payments and COBRA health insurance payments for 30 days.”
Durbin said he was defending out-of-work Americans, that he would love to be home because he is “no spring chicken."
Bunning told Durbin that he would not object if the senator agreed to adopt his or any amendment that would pay for the bill.
But Durbin said Bunning rejected a chance earlier in the week to offer that amendment for an up or down vote."
Imagine, one Red Senator has blocked the extension of unemployment benefits for millions of out-of-work Americans. That's how little the Republicans care about the people of this country. Now that Red has become the symbol of Republicans, that poor color Red has taken on an even worse meaning than when it merely stood for Communism.
And, with good reason. Communism never gained a toehold in America. Conservatives, however, are continually wrecking this country -- every day a little more destruction.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Conservatives Mock The Uninsured
Of course, Conservatives are dumber and have lower IQ's than liberals. It doesn't take an extensive scientific study to prove this point. It's simple common sense.
How can anyone with half a brain tolerate the kind of balderdash that spews from the mouths of "Conservative" commentators and spokespersons every day ad nauseum. For example:
From Media Matters For America -- February 26, 2010:
"Conservatives Mock The Uninsured:
For the Conservative perspective on the country's health care problems, look no further than Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Since the beginning of time, politicians have used personal anecdotes to accentuate policy points, and the bipartisan health care summit was no different. But conservatives went out of their way to respond to the summit by mocking the uninsured -- specifically, remarks from Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), who told the story of a woman without health insurance who "had no denture. She wore her dead sister's teeth."
Multi-millionaire Limbaugh, who has claimed "there is no health care crisis," responded to Slaughter by asking, "Isn't that why they make applesauce?"
LIMBAUGH: You know I'm getting so many people -- this Louise Slaughter comment on the dentures? I'm getting so many people -- this is big. I mean, that gets a one-time mention for a laugh, but there are people out there that think this is huge because it's so stupid. I mean, for example, well, what's wrong with using a dead person's teeth? Aren't the Democrats big into recycling? Save the planet? And so what? So if you don't have any teeth, so what? What's applesauce for? Isn't that why they make applesauce?
Multi-millionaire Glenn Beck similarly stated, "I've read the Constitution ... I didn't see that you had a right to teeth." One of Beck's co-hosts responded to the anecdote by talking in a baby's voice: "I have no health care, Mr. Pwesident, and I have no feet and no tonsils because doctors took 'em out."
Conservative attitudes to the health care crisis perhaps can perhaps best be summed up in Limbaugh's advice to a caller who couldn't afford the $6,000 cost to treat his broken wrist: "Well, you shouldn't have broken your wrist."
Media Matters' John Santore wrote: "Politics aside, the real question is this: Why do ordinary Americans continue to listen to Conservatives who don't even pretend to care about the senseless indignities and horrors experienced by countless citizens of this country?"
The answer to Mr. Santore's question is simple: "Because so many ordinary Americans are too damn dumb."
How can anyone with half a brain tolerate the kind of balderdash that spews from the mouths of "Conservative" commentators and spokespersons every day ad nauseum. For example:
From Media Matters For America -- February 26, 2010:
"Conservatives Mock The Uninsured:
For the Conservative perspective on the country's health care problems, look no further than Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Since the beginning of time, politicians have used personal anecdotes to accentuate policy points, and the bipartisan health care summit was no different. But conservatives went out of their way to respond to the summit by mocking the uninsured -- specifically, remarks from Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), who told the story of a woman without health insurance who "had no denture. She wore her dead sister's teeth."
Multi-millionaire Limbaugh, who has claimed "there is no health care crisis," responded to Slaughter by asking, "Isn't that why they make applesauce?"
LIMBAUGH: You know I'm getting so many people -- this Louise Slaughter comment on the dentures? I'm getting so many people -- this is big. I mean, that gets a one-time mention for a laugh, but there are people out there that think this is huge because it's so stupid. I mean, for example, well, what's wrong with using a dead person's teeth? Aren't the Democrats big into recycling? Save the planet? And so what? So if you don't have any teeth, so what? What's applesauce for? Isn't that why they make applesauce?
Multi-millionaire Glenn Beck similarly stated, "I've read the Constitution ... I didn't see that you had a right to teeth." One of Beck's co-hosts responded to the anecdote by talking in a baby's voice: "I have no health care, Mr. Pwesident, and I have no feet and no tonsils because doctors took 'em out."
Conservative attitudes to the health care crisis perhaps can perhaps best be summed up in Limbaugh's advice to a caller who couldn't afford the $6,000 cost to treat his broken wrist: "Well, you shouldn't have broken your wrist."
Media Matters' John Santore wrote: "Politics aside, the real question is this: Why do ordinary Americans continue to listen to Conservatives who don't even pretend to care about the senseless indignities and horrors experienced by countless citizens of this country?"
The answer to Mr. Santore's question is simple: "Because so many ordinary Americans are too damn dumb."
Barack Obama, American Warrior -- The Man of Steel
From The Economist -- February 25, 2010:
Is Barack Obama Tough Enough?
Conservatives call him too weak to be a warrior.
Tell that to the Taliban.
If there is one thing conservatives agree on, it is that Barack Obama is not tough enough to be commander-in-chief. Some insinuate that he doesn’t love America enough to defend it wholeheartedly. Never before has a president “gone before so many foreign audiences to apologise for so many American misdeeds, both real and imagined,” grumbles Mitt Romney, a once and no doubt future Republican presidential candidate. Even France is lecturing America on the dangers of appeasement, which is like “AIG lecturing us on financial responsibility”, scoffs Tim Pawlenty, another aspirant. Mr Obama is “the groveller in chief”, says Michelle Malkin, a conservative blogger.
An easy way to raise a cheer at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington last week was to bash the president for letting terrorists get “lawyered up”. To tumultuous applause, Marco Rubio, a young Republican firebrand from Florida, urged a more robust approach: kill the terrorists or capture them, “get useful information from them” and then “bring them to justice…in front of a military tribunal in Guantánamo, not a civilian courtroom in Manhattan.” An anti-Obama bumper-sticker asked: “So you’re for abortion but against killing terrorists?”
Most of these barbs are bunk. Yes, Mr Obama favours trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of September 11th 2001, in a civilian court. But that is not a sign of weakness. Several terrorists were successfully prosecuted in civilian courts under George Bush. And though Mr Obama is willing to admit his country’s failings, he is quite ruthless about blowing its enemies to scraps. American drones fired missiles at suspected Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders in Pakistan’s tribal areas 55 times last year, killing hundreds of jihadists and who knows how many civilians. This year, the killing has accelerated; so far more than a dozen strikes have been reported. Mr Obama orders assassinations at a far brisker pace than George Bush ever did. For some reason, his habit of blowing up alleged terrorists and bystanders from the air causes less global outrage than the smothering of a lone Hamas operative, allegedly by Israel, in a hotel room in Dubai. But whether you think it justified or not, it is hardly evidence that the president is “against killing terrorists”.
After more than a year in power, Mr Obama has still not figured out what to do with terrorist suspects captured on foreign soil. He has not yet fulfilled his promise to close the prison at Guantánamo Bay because he does not know what to do with the remaining inmates. Some are deemed too dangerous to release, but cannot easily be prosecuted. In some cases, evidence was obtained by coercion; in others, through intelligence sources that the administration does not want revealed in court. Mr Obama will not rule out holding them indefinitely without charge, but he knows this makes America look bad. He does not want to add to the problem by bringing more foreign jihadists into American custody. Instead, American forces are either killing them or letting less squeamish allies detain them.
In September, for example, America tracked down a much-wanted terrorist in Somalia. Saleh Ali Nabhan was accused of helping to blow up the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and was thought to have been the main liaison between al-Qaeda and its Somali ally, al-Shabab. Had he been captured and questioned, he could have been a mine of useful intelligence. But there is no functioning Somali government to hand him over to, so American helicopters vaporised him. This seems to be the rule, not the exception. A recent Washington Post investigation of Mr Obama’s war against al-Qaeda leaders abroad found “dozens of targeted killings and no reports of high-value detentions” by American forces.
Suspected terrorists caught on American soil are of course taken into American custody. But those caught in Iraq are swiftly handed over to the Iraqis. Those spotted in Pakistan are detained by the Pakistanis—as several senior Taliban commanders were in recent weeks, thanks in part to American intelligence. America maintains a prison at Bagram air base in Afghanistan, but this will be turned over to the Afghans by the end of the year. None of these countries has a reputation for comfortable cells and polite jailers. In short, it is far from clear that Mr Obama’s policies have led to gentler treatment for terrorist suspects abroad. The opposite may be true. Hence the howls of anguish from human-rights activists who once thought Mr Obama was their man. Hence, also, the urgent need for a coherent detainee policy.
Man of Steel
More generally, the notion that Mr Obama does not take seriously his responsibilities as commander-in-chief is risible. In Iraq, he is methodically withdrawing American troops as the country becomes more capable of self-government. In Afghanistan, admittedly after dithering for far too long, he has picked a sound strategy and is seeing it through. The surge of NATO troops into Helmand province appears to be working, at least so far. As for Iran, Mr Obama could always follow Sarah Palin’s advice and declare war on the mullahs so that people “decide, well, maybe he’s tougher than we think”. But that might have, well, negative consequences. Instead, he is trying to persuade China and Russia to go along with stiffer sanctions to hinder Iran’s nuclear ambitions. This may or may not work. The omens are not good: Iran announced this week a plan to build two new uranium-enrichment plants inside mountains, where they will be harder to bomb. James Lindsay and Ray Takeyh argue, in Foreign Affairs, that Mr Obama should be thinking hard about how to contain Iran after it goes nuclear. The success of Mr Obama’s foreign policy will depend on his ability to choose between finely balanced evils. If he fails, it will not be for lack of steel.
Is Barack Obama Tough Enough?
Conservatives call him too weak to be a warrior.
Tell that to the Taliban.
If there is one thing conservatives agree on, it is that Barack Obama is not tough enough to be commander-in-chief. Some insinuate that he doesn’t love America enough to defend it wholeheartedly. Never before has a president “gone before so many foreign audiences to apologise for so many American misdeeds, both real and imagined,” grumbles Mitt Romney, a once and no doubt future Republican presidential candidate. Even France is lecturing America on the dangers of appeasement, which is like “AIG lecturing us on financial responsibility”, scoffs Tim Pawlenty, another aspirant. Mr Obama is “the groveller in chief”, says Michelle Malkin, a conservative blogger.
An easy way to raise a cheer at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington last week was to bash the president for letting terrorists get “lawyered up”. To tumultuous applause, Marco Rubio, a young Republican firebrand from Florida, urged a more robust approach: kill the terrorists or capture them, “get useful information from them” and then “bring them to justice…in front of a military tribunal in Guantánamo, not a civilian courtroom in Manhattan.” An anti-Obama bumper-sticker asked: “So you’re for abortion but against killing terrorists?”
Most of these barbs are bunk. Yes, Mr Obama favours trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of September 11th 2001, in a civilian court. But that is not a sign of weakness. Several terrorists were successfully prosecuted in civilian courts under George Bush. And though Mr Obama is willing to admit his country’s failings, he is quite ruthless about blowing its enemies to scraps. American drones fired missiles at suspected Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders in Pakistan’s tribal areas 55 times last year, killing hundreds of jihadists and who knows how many civilians. This year, the killing has accelerated; so far more than a dozen strikes have been reported. Mr Obama orders assassinations at a far brisker pace than George Bush ever did. For some reason, his habit of blowing up alleged terrorists and bystanders from the air causes less global outrage than the smothering of a lone Hamas operative, allegedly by Israel, in a hotel room in Dubai. But whether you think it justified or not, it is hardly evidence that the president is “against killing terrorists”.
After more than a year in power, Mr Obama has still not figured out what to do with terrorist suspects captured on foreign soil. He has not yet fulfilled his promise to close the prison at Guantánamo Bay because he does not know what to do with the remaining inmates. Some are deemed too dangerous to release, but cannot easily be prosecuted. In some cases, evidence was obtained by coercion; in others, through intelligence sources that the administration does not want revealed in court. Mr Obama will not rule out holding them indefinitely without charge, but he knows this makes America look bad. He does not want to add to the problem by bringing more foreign jihadists into American custody. Instead, American forces are either killing them or letting less squeamish allies detain them.
In September, for example, America tracked down a much-wanted terrorist in Somalia. Saleh Ali Nabhan was accused of helping to blow up the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and was thought to have been the main liaison between al-Qaeda and its Somali ally, al-Shabab. Had he been captured and questioned, he could have been a mine of useful intelligence. But there is no functioning Somali government to hand him over to, so American helicopters vaporised him. This seems to be the rule, not the exception. A recent Washington Post investigation of Mr Obama’s war against al-Qaeda leaders abroad found “dozens of targeted killings and no reports of high-value detentions” by American forces.
Suspected terrorists caught on American soil are of course taken into American custody. But those caught in Iraq are swiftly handed over to the Iraqis. Those spotted in Pakistan are detained by the Pakistanis—as several senior Taliban commanders were in recent weeks, thanks in part to American intelligence. America maintains a prison at Bagram air base in Afghanistan, but this will be turned over to the Afghans by the end of the year. None of these countries has a reputation for comfortable cells and polite jailers. In short, it is far from clear that Mr Obama’s policies have led to gentler treatment for terrorist suspects abroad. The opposite may be true. Hence the howls of anguish from human-rights activists who once thought Mr Obama was their man. Hence, also, the urgent need for a coherent detainee policy.
Man of Steel
More generally, the notion that Mr Obama does not take seriously his responsibilities as commander-in-chief is risible. In Iraq, he is methodically withdrawing American troops as the country becomes more capable of self-government. In Afghanistan, admittedly after dithering for far too long, he has picked a sound strategy and is seeing it through. The surge of NATO troops into Helmand province appears to be working, at least so far. As for Iran, Mr Obama could always follow Sarah Palin’s advice and declare war on the mullahs so that people “decide, well, maybe he’s tougher than we think”. But that might have, well, negative consequences. Instead, he is trying to persuade China and Russia to go along with stiffer sanctions to hinder Iran’s nuclear ambitions. This may or may not work. The omens are not good: Iran announced this week a plan to build two new uranium-enrichment plants inside mountains, where they will be harder to bomb. James Lindsay and Ray Takeyh argue, in Foreign Affairs, that Mr Obama should be thinking hard about how to contain Iran after it goes nuclear. The success of Mr Obama’s foreign policy will depend on his ability to choose between finely balanced evils. If he fails, it will not be for lack of steel.
Friday, February 26, 2010
The GOP "Haves" and "Have-Mores" Against Health Care Reform
The GOP is the Party of the "Haves" and the "Have-Mores". Republicans are waging mortal combat against the "Have-Nots", the "Have-Lesses", and the "Have-Nothings".
40 million Americans who do not have health insurance today would be covered under the proposed new Democratic health care reform legislation. Naturally, Republicans can't tolerate that.
When First Lady Michelle Obama went to a soup kitchen several months ago to help feed the hungry and the homeless, the only thing that Right-Wing looney-tunes expressed was their total outrage that one homeless individual actually had a cell phone. That was the only thing the GOP had to say about this event -- indignation that a homeless person should own a cell phone.
How then can Republicans be anything bought overjoyed that 40 million Americans have no health care coverage? That must be a source of great satisfaction for the Grand Old Party. No wonder GOP Senators have cast not a single vote in favor of health care reform.
Perhaps if a bill were proposed that would deprive an additional 40 million Americans of health care coverage, Republicans would support that bill unanimously.
The Republican Party continues to prove that it is the party of the super-rich and an avowed Enemy of the People.
40 million Americans who do not have health insurance today would be covered under the proposed new Democratic health care reform legislation. Naturally, Republicans can't tolerate that.
When First Lady Michelle Obama went to a soup kitchen several months ago to help feed the hungry and the homeless, the only thing that Right-Wing looney-tunes expressed was their total outrage that one homeless individual actually had a cell phone. That was the only thing the GOP had to say about this event -- indignation that a homeless person should own a cell phone.
How then can Republicans be anything bought overjoyed that 40 million Americans have no health care coverage? That must be a source of great satisfaction for the Grand Old Party. No wonder GOP Senators have cast not a single vote in favor of health care reform.
Perhaps if a bill were proposed that would deprive an additional 40 million Americans of health care coverage, Republicans would support that bill unanimously.
The Republican Party continues to prove that it is the party of the super-rich and an avowed Enemy of the People.
A Productive Meeting With Republicans on Health Care Reform ?
A productive meeting with Republicans on Health Care Reform? We'll see. Can an elephant change its spots?
Here's a hopeful message from Organizing For America -- February 26, 2010:
"President Obama gathered with congressional leaders of both parties yesterday for an open, honest, and productive discussion on health reform. It was a strong success, focused on substance -- as CNN put it, "a win for our country."
While disagreements remain, the meeting uncovered considerable areas of overlap, including many Republican ideas that were already in the President's proposal. And with all the best ideas now on the table, the President made it clear that no excuses remain: Congress must put aside partisan divides and swiftly complete a final bill.
The President was crystal clear about his commitment to pass reform that puts Americans in charge of their own health care, reduces costs, and expands coverage for tens of millions without insurance. We've come too far to scrap a year's worth of work and start over. And the millions of Americans that are suffering can't afford another year-long debate. There's simply too much at stake.
Yesterday's bipartisan meeting was a huge step forward toward passing reform. And today, you can help make sure we go the rest of the way."
Will the Republicans follow through with any bi-partisanship on Health Care Reform? That remains to be seen.
However, if the past is prologue ---- I wouldn't hold my breath.
Here's a hopeful message from Organizing For America -- February 26, 2010:
"President Obama gathered with congressional leaders of both parties yesterday for an open, honest, and productive discussion on health reform. It was a strong success, focused on substance -- as CNN put it, "a win for our country."
While disagreements remain, the meeting uncovered considerable areas of overlap, including many Republican ideas that were already in the President's proposal. And with all the best ideas now on the table, the President made it clear that no excuses remain: Congress must put aside partisan divides and swiftly complete a final bill.
The President was crystal clear about his commitment to pass reform that puts Americans in charge of their own health care, reduces costs, and expands coverage for tens of millions without insurance. We've come too far to scrap a year's worth of work and start over. And the millions of Americans that are suffering can't afford another year-long debate. There's simply too much at stake.
Yesterday's bipartisan meeting was a huge step forward toward passing reform. And today, you can help make sure we go the rest of the way."
Will the Republicans follow through with any bi-partisanship on Health Care Reform? That remains to be seen.
However, if the past is prologue ---- I wouldn't hold my breath.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Joe Stack's Suicide Note
My loyal correspondent, HOTR, was kind enough to send me the following comment:
"You want FOX to call the liberal Brown Noser a terrorist? OK, I'll do it. The liberal, Brown Noser and Bush hater was a terrorist. Feel better?"
Now, that's lovely, HOTR. Thank you for sending it in. Your comment really piqued my curiosity. I said to myself: "What in the world did Joe Stack say in his suicide note that would justify describing him as a "lib" and a "terrorist"?
So, I set out in quest of Joe Stack's suicide note and, lo and behold, there it was -- in plain sight, for all the world to see. So, just in case you may have missed it, here is Joe Stack's suicide note. Now, you tell me, what in this note would justify anyone, other than HOTR, describing Mr. Stack as a "liberal, Brown Noser, terrorist"? Here is his final note:
"If you’re reading this, you’re no doubt asking yourself, “Why did this have to happen?” The simple truth is that it is complicated and has been coming for a long time. The writing process, started many months ago, was intended to be therapy in the face of the looming realization that there isn’t enough therapy in the world that can fix what is really broken. Needless to say, this rant could fill volumes with example after example if I would let it. I find the process of writing it frustrating, tedious, and probably pointless... especially given my gross inability to gracefully articulate my thoughts in light of the storm raging in my head. Exactly what is therapeutic about that I’m not sure, but desperate times call for desperate measures.
We are all taught as children that without laws there would be no society, only anarchy. Sadly, starting at early ages we in this country have been brainwashed to believe that, in return for our dedication and service, our government stands for justice for all. We are further brainwashed to believe that there is freedom in this place, and that we should be ready to lay our lives down for the noble principals represented by its founding fathers. Remember? One of these was “no taxation without representation”. I have spent the total years of my adulthood unlearning that crap from only a few years of my childhood.
These days anyone who really stands up for that principal is promptly labeled a “crackpot”, traitor and worse. While very few working people would say they haven’t had their fair share of taxes (as can I), in my lifetime I can say with a great degree of certainty that there has never been a politician cast a vote on any matter with the likes of me or my interests in mind. Nor, for that matter, are they the least bit interested in me or anything I have to say.
Why is it that a handful of thugs and plunderers can commit unthinkable atrocities (and in the case of the GM executives, for scores of years) and when it’s time for their gravy train to crash under the weight of their gluttony and overwhelming stupidity, the force of the full federal government has no difficulty coming to their aid within days if not hours? Yet at the same time, the joke we call the American medical system, including the drug and insurance companies, are murdering tens of thousands of people a year and stealing from the corpses and victims they cripple, and this country’s leaders don’t see this as important as bailing out a few of their vile, rich cronies. Yet, the political “representatives” (thieves, liars, and self-serving scumbags is far more accurate) have endless time to sit around for year after year and debate the state of the “terrible health care problem”. It’s clear they see no crisis as long as the dead people don’t get in the way of their corporate profits rolling in.
Well Mr. Big Brother IRS man... take my pound of flesh and sleep well. And justice? You’ve got to be kidding! How can any rational individual explain that white elephant conundrum in the middle of our tax system and, indeed, our entire legal system? Here we have a system that is, by far, too complicated for the brightest of the master scholars to understand. Yet, it mercilessly “holds accountable” its victims, claiming that they’re responsible for fully complying with laws not even the experts understand. The law “requires” a signature on the bottom of a tax filing; yet no one can say truthfully that they understand what they are signing; if that’s not “duress” than what is. If this is not the measure of a totalitarian regime, nothing is.
How did I get here? My introduction to the real American nightmare starts back in the early ‘80s. Unfortunately after more than 16 years of school, somewhere along the line I picked up the absurd, pompous notion that I could read and understand plain English. Some friends introduced me to a group of people who were having ‘tax code’ readings and discussions. In particular, zeroed in on a section relating to the wonderful “exemptions” that make institutions like the vulgar, corrupt Catholic Church so incredibly wealthy. We carefully studied the law (with the help of some of the “best”, high-paid, experienced tax lawyers in the business), and then began to do exactly what the “big boys” were doing (except that we weren’t steeling from our congregation or lying to the government about our massive profits in the name of God). We took a great deal of care to make it all visible, following all of the rules, exactly the way the law said it was to be done.
The intent of this exercise and our efforts was to bring about a much-needed re- evaluation of the laws that allow the monsters of organized religion to make such a mockery of people who earn an honest living. However, this is where I learned that there are two “interpretations” for every law; one for the very rich, and one for the rest of us... Oh, and the monsters are the very ones making and enforcing the laws; the inquisition is still alive and well today in this country.
That little lesson in patriotism cost me $40,000+, 10 years of my life, and set my retirement plans back to 0. It made me realize for the first time that I live in a country with an ideology that is based on a total and complete lie. It also made me realize, not only how naive I had been, but also the incredible stupidity of the American public; that they buy, hook, line, and sinker, the crap about their “freedom”... and that they continue to do so with eyes closed in the face of overwhelming evidence and all that keeps happening in front of them.
Well Mr. Big Brother IRS man... take my pound of flesh and sleep well. Before even having to make a shaky recovery from the sting of the first lesson on what justice really means in this country (around 1984 after making my way through engineering school and still another five years of “paying my dues”), I felt I finally had to take a chance of launching my dream of becoming an independent engineer. On the subjects of engineers and dreams of independence, I should digress somewhat to say that I’m sure that I inherited the fascination for creative problem solving from my father. I realized this at a very young age.
The significance of independence, however, came much later during my early years of college; at the age of 18 or 19 when I was living on my own as student in an apartment in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. My neighbor was an elderly retired woman (80+ seemed ancient to me at that age) who was the widowed wife of a retired steel worker. Her husband had worked all his life in the steel mills of central Pennsylvania with promises from big business and the union that, for his 30 years of service, he would have a pension and medical care to look forward to in his retirement. Instead he was one of the thousands who got nothing because the incompetent mill management and corrupt union (not to mention the government) raided their pension funds and stole their retirement. All she had was social security to live on.
In retrospect, the situation was laughable because here I was living on peanut butter and bread (or Ritz crackers when I could afford to splurge) for months at a time. When I got to know this poor figure and heard her story I felt worse for her plight than for my own (I, after all, I thought I had everything to in front of me). I was genuinely appalled at one point, as we exchanged stories and commiserated with each other over our situations, when she in her grandmotherly fashion tried to convince me that I would be “healthier” eating cat food (like her) rather than trying to get all my substance from peanut butter and bread. I couldn’t quite go there, but the impression was made. I decided that I didn’t trust big business to take care of me, and that I would take responsibility for my own future and myself.
Return to the early ‘80s, and here I was off to a terrifying start as a ‘wet-behind- the-ears’ contract software engineer... and two years later, thanks to the fine backroom, midnight effort by the sleazy executives of Arthur Andersen (the very same folks who later brought us Enron and other such calamities) and an equally sleazy New York Senator (Patrick Moynihan), we saw the passage of 1986 tax reform act with its section 1706. For you who are unfamiliar, here is the core text of the IRS Section 1706, defining the treatment of workers (such as contract engineers) for tax purposes.
Well Mr. Big Brother IRS man... take my pound of flesh and sleep well.
SEC. 1706. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN TECHNICAL PERSONNEL.
(a) IN GENERAL - Section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:
(d) EXCEPTION. - This section shall not apply in the case of an individual who pursuant to an arrangement between the taxpayer and another person, provides services for such other person as an engineer, designer, drafter, computer programmer, systems analyst, or other similarly skilled worker engaged in a similar line of work.
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE. - The amendment made by this section shall apply to remuneration paid and services rendered after December 31, 1986.
Note:
• • •
"another person" is the client in the traditional job-shop relationship. "taxpayer" is the recruiter, broker, agency, or job shop. "individual", "employee", or "worker" is you.
Admittedly, you need to read the treatment to understand what it is saying but it’s not very complicated. The bottom line is that they may as well have put my name right in the text of section (d). Moreover, they could only have been more blunt if they would have came out and directly declared me a criminal and non-citizen slave.Twenty years later, I still can’t believe my eyes.
During 1987, I spent close to $5000 of my ‘pocket change’, and at least 1000 hours of my time writing, printing, and mailing to any senator, congressman, governor, or slug that might listen; none did, and they universally treated me as if I was wasting their time. I spent countless hours on the L.A. freeways driving to meetings and any and all of the disorganized professional groups who were attempting to mount a campaign against this atrocity. This, only to discover that our efforts were being easily derailed by a few moles from the brokers who were just beginning to enjoy the windfall from the new declaration of their “freedom”. Oh, and don’t forget, for all of the time I was spending on this, I was losing income that I couldn’t bill clients.
After months of struggling it had clearly gotten to be a futile exercise. The best we could get for all of our trouble is a pronouncement from an IRS mouthpiece that they weren’t going to enforce that provision (read harass engineers and scientists). This immediately proved to be a lie, and the mere existence of the regulation began to have its impact on my bottom line; this, of course, was the intended effect. Again, rewind my retirement plans back to 0 and shift them into idle. If I had any sense, I clearly should have left abandoned engineering and never looked back.
Instead I got busy working 100-hour workweeks. Then came the L.A. depression of the early 1990s. Our leaders decided that they didn’t need the all of those extra Air Force bases they had in Southern California, so they were closed; just like that. The result was economic devastation in the region that rivaled the widely publicized Texas S&L fiasco. However, because the government caused it, no one gave a shit about all of the young families who lost their homes or street after street of boarded up houses abandoned to the wealthy loan companies who received government funds to “shore up” their windfall. Again, I lost my retirement.
Years later, after weathering a divorce and the constant struggle trying to build some momentum with my business, I find myself once again beginning to finally pick up some speed. Then came the .COM bust and the 911 nightmare. Our leaders decided that all aircraft were grounded for what seemed like an eternity; and long after that, ‘special’ facilities like San Francisco were on security alert for months. This made access to my customers prohibitively expensive. Ironically, after what they had done the Government came to the aid of the airlines with billions of our tax dollars ... as usual they left me to rot and die while they bailed out their rich, incompetent cronies WITH MY MONEY! After these events, there went my business but not quite yet all of my retirement and savings.
By this time, I’m thinking that it might be good for a change. Bye to California, I’ll try Austin for a while. So I moved, only to find out that this is a place with a highly inflated sense of self-importance and where damn little real engineering work is done. I’ve never experienced such a hard time finding work. The rates are 1/3 of what I was earning before the crash, because pay rates here are fixed by the three or four large companies in the area who are in collusion to drive down prices and wages... and this happens because the justice department is all on the take and doesn’t give a fuck about serving anyone or anything but themselves and their rich buddies.
To survive, I was forced to cannibalize my savings and retirement, the last of which was a small IRA. This came in a year with mammoth expenses and not a single dollar of income. I filed no return that year thinking that because I didn’t have any income there was no need. The sleazy government decided that they disagreed. But they didn’t notify me in time for me to launch a legal objection so when I attempted to get a protest filed with the court I was told I was no longer entitled to due process because the time to file ran out. Bend over for another $10,000 helping of justice.
So now we come to the present. After my experience with the CPA world, following the business crash I swore that I’d never enter another accountant’s office again. But here I am with a new marriage and a boatload of undocumented income, not to mention an expensive new business asset, a piano, which I had no idea how to handle. After considerable thought I decided that it would be irresponsible NOT to get professional help; a very big mistake.
When we received the forms back I was very optimistic that they were in order. I had taken all of the years information to Bill Ross, and he came back with results very similar to what I was expecting. Except that he had neglected to include the contents of Sheryl’s unreported income; $12,700 worth of it. To make matters worse, Ross knew all along this was missing and I didn’t have a clue until he pointed it out in the middle of the audit. By that time it had become brutally evident that he was representing himself and not me.
This left me stuck in the middle of this disaster trying to defend transactions that have no relationship to anything tax-related (at least the tax-related transactions were poorly documented). Things I never knew anything about and things my wife had no clue would ever matter to anyone. The end result is... well, just look around.
I remember reading about the stock market crash before the “great” depression and how there were wealthy bankers and businessmen jumping out of windows when they realized they screwed up and lost everything. Isn’t it ironic how far we’ve come in 60 years in this country that they now know how to fix that little economic problem; they just steal from the middle class (who doesn’t have any say in it, elections are a joke) to cover their asses and it’s “business-as-usual”. Now when the wealthy fuck up, the poor get to die for the mistakes... isn’t that a clever, tidy solution.
As government agencies go, the FAA is often justifiably referred to as a tombstone agency, though they are hardly alone. The recent presidential puppet GW Bush and his cronies in their eight years certainly reinforced for all of us that this criticism rings equally true for all of the government. Nothing changes unless there is a body count (unless it is in the interest of the wealthy sows at the government trough). In a government full of hypocrites from top to bottom, life is as cheap as their lies and their self-serving laws.
I know I’m hardly the first one to decide I have had all I can stand. It has always been a myth that people have stopped dying for their freedom in this country, and it isn’t limited to the blacks, and poor immigrants. I know there have been countless before me and there are sure to be as many after. But I also know that by not adding my body to the count, I insure nothing will change. I choose to not keep looking over my shoulder at “big brother” while he strips my carcass, I choose not to ignore what is going on all around me, I choose not to pretend that business as usual won’t continue; I have just had enough.
I can only hope that the numbers quickly get too big to be white washed and ignored that the American zombies wake up and revolt; it will take nothing less. I would only hope that by striking a nerve that stimulates the inevitable double standard, knee-jerk government reaction that results in more stupid draconian restrictions people wake up and begin to see the pompous political thugs and their mindless minions for what they are. Sadly, though I spent my entire life trying to believe it wasn’t so, but violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer. The cruel joke is that the really big chunks of shit at the top have known this all along and have been laughing, at and using this awareness against, fools like me all along.
I saw it written once that the definition of insanity is repeating the same process over and over and expecting the outcome to suddenly be different. I am finally ready to stop this insanity. Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let’s try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well.
The Communist Creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
The Capitalist Creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.
Joe Stack (1956-2010) 02/18/2010
Once again, I ask: What genius decided that this suicide note shows that Joe Stack was a "liberal" or a "terrorist"?
"You want FOX to call the liberal Brown Noser a terrorist? OK, I'll do it. The liberal, Brown Noser and Bush hater was a terrorist. Feel better?"
Now, that's lovely, HOTR. Thank you for sending it in. Your comment really piqued my curiosity. I said to myself: "What in the world did Joe Stack say in his suicide note that would justify describing him as a "lib" and a "terrorist"?
So, I set out in quest of Joe Stack's suicide note and, lo and behold, there it was -- in plain sight, for all the world to see. So, just in case you may have missed it, here is Joe Stack's suicide note. Now, you tell me, what in this note would justify anyone, other than HOTR, describing Mr. Stack as a "liberal, Brown Noser, terrorist"? Here is his final note:
"If you’re reading this, you’re no doubt asking yourself, “Why did this have to happen?” The simple truth is that it is complicated and has been coming for a long time. The writing process, started many months ago, was intended to be therapy in the face of the looming realization that there isn’t enough therapy in the world that can fix what is really broken. Needless to say, this rant could fill volumes with example after example if I would let it. I find the process of writing it frustrating, tedious, and probably pointless... especially given my gross inability to gracefully articulate my thoughts in light of the storm raging in my head. Exactly what is therapeutic about that I’m not sure, but desperate times call for desperate measures.
We are all taught as children that without laws there would be no society, only anarchy. Sadly, starting at early ages we in this country have been brainwashed to believe that, in return for our dedication and service, our government stands for justice for all. We are further brainwashed to believe that there is freedom in this place, and that we should be ready to lay our lives down for the noble principals represented by its founding fathers. Remember? One of these was “no taxation without representation”. I have spent the total years of my adulthood unlearning that crap from only a few years of my childhood.
These days anyone who really stands up for that principal is promptly labeled a “crackpot”, traitor and worse. While very few working people would say they haven’t had their fair share of taxes (as can I), in my lifetime I can say with a great degree of certainty that there has never been a politician cast a vote on any matter with the likes of me or my interests in mind. Nor, for that matter, are they the least bit interested in me or anything I have to say.
Why is it that a handful of thugs and plunderers can commit unthinkable atrocities (and in the case of the GM executives, for scores of years) and when it’s time for their gravy train to crash under the weight of their gluttony and overwhelming stupidity, the force of the full federal government has no difficulty coming to their aid within days if not hours? Yet at the same time, the joke we call the American medical system, including the drug and insurance companies, are murdering tens of thousands of people a year and stealing from the corpses and victims they cripple, and this country’s leaders don’t see this as important as bailing out a few of their vile, rich cronies. Yet, the political “representatives” (thieves, liars, and self-serving scumbags is far more accurate) have endless time to sit around for year after year and debate the state of the “terrible health care problem”. It’s clear they see no crisis as long as the dead people don’t get in the way of their corporate profits rolling in.
Well Mr. Big Brother IRS man... take my pound of flesh and sleep well. And justice? You’ve got to be kidding! How can any rational individual explain that white elephant conundrum in the middle of our tax system and, indeed, our entire legal system? Here we have a system that is, by far, too complicated for the brightest of the master scholars to understand. Yet, it mercilessly “holds accountable” its victims, claiming that they’re responsible for fully complying with laws not even the experts understand. The law “requires” a signature on the bottom of a tax filing; yet no one can say truthfully that they understand what they are signing; if that’s not “duress” than what is. If this is not the measure of a totalitarian regime, nothing is.
How did I get here? My introduction to the real American nightmare starts back in the early ‘80s. Unfortunately after more than 16 years of school, somewhere along the line I picked up the absurd, pompous notion that I could read and understand plain English. Some friends introduced me to a group of people who were having ‘tax code’ readings and discussions. In particular, zeroed in on a section relating to the wonderful “exemptions” that make institutions like the vulgar, corrupt Catholic Church so incredibly wealthy. We carefully studied the law (with the help of some of the “best”, high-paid, experienced tax lawyers in the business), and then began to do exactly what the “big boys” were doing (except that we weren’t steeling from our congregation or lying to the government about our massive profits in the name of God). We took a great deal of care to make it all visible, following all of the rules, exactly the way the law said it was to be done.
The intent of this exercise and our efforts was to bring about a much-needed re- evaluation of the laws that allow the monsters of organized religion to make such a mockery of people who earn an honest living. However, this is where I learned that there are two “interpretations” for every law; one for the very rich, and one for the rest of us... Oh, and the monsters are the very ones making and enforcing the laws; the inquisition is still alive and well today in this country.
That little lesson in patriotism cost me $40,000+, 10 years of my life, and set my retirement plans back to 0. It made me realize for the first time that I live in a country with an ideology that is based on a total and complete lie. It also made me realize, not only how naive I had been, but also the incredible stupidity of the American public; that they buy, hook, line, and sinker, the crap about their “freedom”... and that they continue to do so with eyes closed in the face of overwhelming evidence and all that keeps happening in front of them.
Well Mr. Big Brother IRS man... take my pound of flesh and sleep well. Before even having to make a shaky recovery from the sting of the first lesson on what justice really means in this country (around 1984 after making my way through engineering school and still another five years of “paying my dues”), I felt I finally had to take a chance of launching my dream of becoming an independent engineer. On the subjects of engineers and dreams of independence, I should digress somewhat to say that I’m sure that I inherited the fascination for creative problem solving from my father. I realized this at a very young age.
The significance of independence, however, came much later during my early years of college; at the age of 18 or 19 when I was living on my own as student in an apartment in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. My neighbor was an elderly retired woman (80+ seemed ancient to me at that age) who was the widowed wife of a retired steel worker. Her husband had worked all his life in the steel mills of central Pennsylvania with promises from big business and the union that, for his 30 years of service, he would have a pension and medical care to look forward to in his retirement. Instead he was one of the thousands who got nothing because the incompetent mill management and corrupt union (not to mention the government) raided their pension funds and stole their retirement. All she had was social security to live on.
In retrospect, the situation was laughable because here I was living on peanut butter and bread (or Ritz crackers when I could afford to splurge) for months at a time. When I got to know this poor figure and heard her story I felt worse for her plight than for my own (I, after all, I thought I had everything to in front of me). I was genuinely appalled at one point, as we exchanged stories and commiserated with each other over our situations, when she in her grandmotherly fashion tried to convince me that I would be “healthier” eating cat food (like her) rather than trying to get all my substance from peanut butter and bread. I couldn’t quite go there, but the impression was made. I decided that I didn’t trust big business to take care of me, and that I would take responsibility for my own future and myself.
Return to the early ‘80s, and here I was off to a terrifying start as a ‘wet-behind- the-ears’ contract software engineer... and two years later, thanks to the fine backroom, midnight effort by the sleazy executives of Arthur Andersen (the very same folks who later brought us Enron and other such calamities) and an equally sleazy New York Senator (Patrick Moynihan), we saw the passage of 1986 tax reform act with its section 1706. For you who are unfamiliar, here is the core text of the IRS Section 1706, defining the treatment of workers (such as contract engineers) for tax purposes.
Well Mr. Big Brother IRS man... take my pound of flesh and sleep well.
SEC. 1706. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN TECHNICAL PERSONNEL.
(a) IN GENERAL - Section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:
(d) EXCEPTION. - This section shall not apply in the case of an individual who pursuant to an arrangement between the taxpayer and another person, provides services for such other person as an engineer, designer, drafter, computer programmer, systems analyst, or other similarly skilled worker engaged in a similar line of work.
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE. - The amendment made by this section shall apply to remuneration paid and services rendered after December 31, 1986.
Note:
• • •
"another person" is the client in the traditional job-shop relationship. "taxpayer" is the recruiter, broker, agency, or job shop. "individual", "employee", or "worker" is you.
Admittedly, you need to read the treatment to understand what it is saying but it’s not very complicated. The bottom line is that they may as well have put my name right in the text of section (d). Moreover, they could only have been more blunt if they would have came out and directly declared me a criminal and non-citizen slave.Twenty years later, I still can’t believe my eyes.
During 1987, I spent close to $5000 of my ‘pocket change’, and at least 1000 hours of my time writing, printing, and mailing to any senator, congressman, governor, or slug that might listen; none did, and they universally treated me as if I was wasting their time. I spent countless hours on the L.A. freeways driving to meetings and any and all of the disorganized professional groups who were attempting to mount a campaign against this atrocity. This, only to discover that our efforts were being easily derailed by a few moles from the brokers who were just beginning to enjoy the windfall from the new declaration of their “freedom”. Oh, and don’t forget, for all of the time I was spending on this, I was losing income that I couldn’t bill clients.
After months of struggling it had clearly gotten to be a futile exercise. The best we could get for all of our trouble is a pronouncement from an IRS mouthpiece that they weren’t going to enforce that provision (read harass engineers and scientists). This immediately proved to be a lie, and the mere existence of the regulation began to have its impact on my bottom line; this, of course, was the intended effect. Again, rewind my retirement plans back to 0 and shift them into idle. If I had any sense, I clearly should have left abandoned engineering and never looked back.
Instead I got busy working 100-hour workweeks. Then came the L.A. depression of the early 1990s. Our leaders decided that they didn’t need the all of those extra Air Force bases they had in Southern California, so they were closed; just like that. The result was economic devastation in the region that rivaled the widely publicized Texas S&L fiasco. However, because the government caused it, no one gave a shit about all of the young families who lost their homes or street after street of boarded up houses abandoned to the wealthy loan companies who received government funds to “shore up” their windfall. Again, I lost my retirement.
Years later, after weathering a divorce and the constant struggle trying to build some momentum with my business, I find myself once again beginning to finally pick up some speed. Then came the .COM bust and the 911 nightmare. Our leaders decided that all aircraft were grounded for what seemed like an eternity; and long after that, ‘special’ facilities like San Francisco were on security alert for months. This made access to my customers prohibitively expensive. Ironically, after what they had done the Government came to the aid of the airlines with billions of our tax dollars ... as usual they left me to rot and die while they bailed out their rich, incompetent cronies WITH MY MONEY! After these events, there went my business but not quite yet all of my retirement and savings.
By this time, I’m thinking that it might be good for a change. Bye to California, I’ll try Austin for a while. So I moved, only to find out that this is a place with a highly inflated sense of self-importance and where damn little real engineering work is done. I’ve never experienced such a hard time finding work. The rates are 1/3 of what I was earning before the crash, because pay rates here are fixed by the three or four large companies in the area who are in collusion to drive down prices and wages... and this happens because the justice department is all on the take and doesn’t give a fuck about serving anyone or anything but themselves and their rich buddies.
To survive, I was forced to cannibalize my savings and retirement, the last of which was a small IRA. This came in a year with mammoth expenses and not a single dollar of income. I filed no return that year thinking that because I didn’t have any income there was no need. The sleazy government decided that they disagreed. But they didn’t notify me in time for me to launch a legal objection so when I attempted to get a protest filed with the court I was told I was no longer entitled to due process because the time to file ran out. Bend over for another $10,000 helping of justice.
So now we come to the present. After my experience with the CPA world, following the business crash I swore that I’d never enter another accountant’s office again. But here I am with a new marriage and a boatload of undocumented income, not to mention an expensive new business asset, a piano, which I had no idea how to handle. After considerable thought I decided that it would be irresponsible NOT to get professional help; a very big mistake.
When we received the forms back I was very optimistic that they were in order. I had taken all of the years information to Bill Ross, and he came back with results very similar to what I was expecting. Except that he had neglected to include the contents of Sheryl’s unreported income; $12,700 worth of it. To make matters worse, Ross knew all along this was missing and I didn’t have a clue until he pointed it out in the middle of the audit. By that time it had become brutally evident that he was representing himself and not me.
This left me stuck in the middle of this disaster trying to defend transactions that have no relationship to anything tax-related (at least the tax-related transactions were poorly documented). Things I never knew anything about and things my wife had no clue would ever matter to anyone. The end result is... well, just look around.
I remember reading about the stock market crash before the “great” depression and how there were wealthy bankers and businessmen jumping out of windows when they realized they screwed up and lost everything. Isn’t it ironic how far we’ve come in 60 years in this country that they now know how to fix that little economic problem; they just steal from the middle class (who doesn’t have any say in it, elections are a joke) to cover their asses and it’s “business-as-usual”. Now when the wealthy fuck up, the poor get to die for the mistakes... isn’t that a clever, tidy solution.
As government agencies go, the FAA is often justifiably referred to as a tombstone agency, though they are hardly alone. The recent presidential puppet GW Bush and his cronies in their eight years certainly reinforced for all of us that this criticism rings equally true for all of the government. Nothing changes unless there is a body count (unless it is in the interest of the wealthy sows at the government trough). In a government full of hypocrites from top to bottom, life is as cheap as their lies and their self-serving laws.
I know I’m hardly the first one to decide I have had all I can stand. It has always been a myth that people have stopped dying for their freedom in this country, and it isn’t limited to the blacks, and poor immigrants. I know there have been countless before me and there are sure to be as many after. But I also know that by not adding my body to the count, I insure nothing will change. I choose to not keep looking over my shoulder at “big brother” while he strips my carcass, I choose not to ignore what is going on all around me, I choose not to pretend that business as usual won’t continue; I have just had enough.
I can only hope that the numbers quickly get too big to be white washed and ignored that the American zombies wake up and revolt; it will take nothing less. I would only hope that by striking a nerve that stimulates the inevitable double standard, knee-jerk government reaction that results in more stupid draconian restrictions people wake up and begin to see the pompous political thugs and their mindless minions for what they are. Sadly, though I spent my entire life trying to believe it wasn’t so, but violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer. The cruel joke is that the really big chunks of shit at the top have known this all along and have been laughing, at and using this awareness against, fools like me all along.
I saw it written once that the definition of insanity is repeating the same process over and over and expecting the outcome to suddenly be different. I am finally ready to stop this insanity. Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let’s try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well.
The Communist Creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
The Capitalist Creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.
Joe Stack (1956-2010) 02/18/2010
Once again, I ask: What genius decided that this suicide note shows that Joe Stack was a "liberal" or a "terrorist"?
FOX News Double Standard on Who Is a Terrorist
Would Fox News Be So Sure The Austin Plane Crash Was Not A Terrorist If The Pilot Had Been Muslim?
February 19, 2010:
"David Neiwert, at Crooks and Liars, notes how eager the Fox News folks were to assure viewers that yesterday’s (2/18/10) plane crash into an IRS office in Austin had nothing to do with terrorism. Neiwert asks, “Since when is attempting to blow up a federal building NOT an act of domestic terrorism?” He makes a great point, of course, especially since it was not long ago that Fox News pundits were foaming at the mouth because Obama had not called the Fort Hood shooter a terrorist. It’s true we don’t know all the facts about either case but there are some similarities: Nidal Malik Hasan was angry at the military and went on a shooting rampage; Joseph Stack was angry at the IRS and the federal government and crashed his plane into their building. Yes, Hasan seemed to have extremist connections that, as far as we know, Stack did not have. But also as far as we know, both were acting alone as the result of some kind of personal grievance.
So what’s the big difference that mandates that Hasan be called a terrorist and not Stack? The only reason I can think of is that Hasan is a Muslim and Stack does not seem to be."
February 19, 2010:
"David Neiwert, at Crooks and Liars, notes how eager the Fox News folks were to assure viewers that yesterday’s (2/18/10) plane crash into an IRS office in Austin had nothing to do with terrorism. Neiwert asks, “Since when is attempting to blow up a federal building NOT an act of domestic terrorism?” He makes a great point, of course, especially since it was not long ago that Fox News pundits were foaming at the mouth because Obama had not called the Fort Hood shooter a terrorist. It’s true we don’t know all the facts about either case but there are some similarities: Nidal Malik Hasan was angry at the military and went on a shooting rampage; Joseph Stack was angry at the IRS and the federal government and crashed his plane into their building. Yes, Hasan seemed to have extremist connections that, as far as we know, Stack did not have. But also as far as we know, both were acting alone as the result of some kind of personal grievance.
So what’s the big difference that mandates that Hasan be called a terrorist and not Stack? The only reason I can think of is that Hasan is a Muslim and Stack does not seem to be."
The Conservative Celebration of Ignorance
Cold truths about the Northeast's harsh winter
By Eugene Robinson
The Washington Post -- Friday, February 19, 2010:
We're the nation that put a man on the moon, so we can't be stupid. We're just pretending, right? We're not really taking seriously the "argument" that the big snowstorms that have hit the Northeast in recent weeks constitute evidence -- or even proof -- that climate change is some kind of hoax.
That would be unbelievably dumb. Yet there are elected officials in Washington who apparently believe such nonsense. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) had his family build an igloo near the Capitol and label it "Al Gore's New Home." Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) boasted on Twitter that the snows would continue "until Al Gore cries uncle." Talking heads are seriously debating whether the record snowstorms doom the prospects for comprehensive legislation to deal with energy policy and climate change, which is one of President Obama's top priorities.
It is true that Washington is slogging through its snowiest winter on record. Before I could bring in the newspaper on Thursday morning, I had to dress for a mountain-climbing expedition because my front yard resembles a small glacier. My commute to the office normally takes 20 minutes; it took more than an hour, as I fought my way through streets whose outside lanes have been encroached by huge snowbanks.
But that was nothing compared with Tuesday morning, when I awoke to find that a snowplow had blocked my car into the driveway with a two-foot berm of ice. I had an early appointment, so I had to shovel my way out -- before coffee. I'm afraid that the first thing my neighbors heard that morning was some unneighborly language.
Still, even this unpleasant experience didn't make me crazy enough to entertain the notion that a snowstorm or two -- in a city where it snows every year -- could somehow disprove all the scientific evidence for climate change.
Nor did it even cross my mind that our Snowmageddon, inconvenient though it might be, could meaningfully alter the political debate over climate legislation. That would be idiotic. As comedian Stephen Colbert pointed out, it would be like looking outside at night, seeing the darkness and concluding that "the sun has been destroyed."
As even Sens. Inhofe and DeMint surely are aware, the Earth is really, really big. (And it's not flat. It's shaped like a ball. Honest.) It's so big that it can be cold here and warm elsewhere -- and this is the key concept -- at the same time. Even if it were unusually cold throughout the continental United States, that still represents less than 2 percent of the Earth's surface.
Those who want to use our harsh winter to "disprove" the theory that the planet's atmosphere is warming should realize that anecdotal evidence always cuts both ways. Before the Winter Olympics in Vancouver, crews were using earth-movers and aircraft to deposit snow on the ski runs -- the winter had been unusually warm. Preliminary data from climate scientists indicate that January, in terms of global temperatures, was actually hotter than usual. Revelers participating in Rio de Janeiro's annual carnival, which ended Tuesday, sweltered in atypical heat, with temperatures above 100 degrees. Fortunately, the custom during carnival is not to wear much in the way of clothing.
It has been a bad few months, to say the least, for those brave enough to still call themselves "climate scientists." First, some e-mails were unearthed that showed some leading researchers to be petty, vindictive and perhaps willing to ignore data that didn't fit their theories. Then it was learned that an official U.N. document on climate change overstated the rate at which Himalayan glaciers are believed to be melting. As other examples of sloppiness or imprecision emerged, the winter turned harsh. Critics piled on, sensing that the moment had arrived to kill any serious global effort to address humanity's impact on the temperature of the biosphere.
But here's what those bad few months can't change: After decades of study, scientists around the world have reached the conclusion that the Earth is warming and that humankind is responsible. The past decade was the warmest on record. Among the anticipated effects of climate change are increased precipitation -- not just rain, but also snow -- and bigger storms. What we've seen this winter tends to prove, not disprove, the scientific consensus that warming is real.
By Eugene Robinson
The Washington Post -- Friday, February 19, 2010:
We're the nation that put a man on the moon, so we can't be stupid. We're just pretending, right? We're not really taking seriously the "argument" that the big snowstorms that have hit the Northeast in recent weeks constitute evidence -- or even proof -- that climate change is some kind of hoax.
That would be unbelievably dumb. Yet there are elected officials in Washington who apparently believe such nonsense. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) had his family build an igloo near the Capitol and label it "Al Gore's New Home." Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) boasted on Twitter that the snows would continue "until Al Gore cries uncle." Talking heads are seriously debating whether the record snowstorms doom the prospects for comprehensive legislation to deal with energy policy and climate change, which is one of President Obama's top priorities.
It is true that Washington is slogging through its snowiest winter on record. Before I could bring in the newspaper on Thursday morning, I had to dress for a mountain-climbing expedition because my front yard resembles a small glacier. My commute to the office normally takes 20 minutes; it took more than an hour, as I fought my way through streets whose outside lanes have been encroached by huge snowbanks.
But that was nothing compared with Tuesday morning, when I awoke to find that a snowplow had blocked my car into the driveway with a two-foot berm of ice. I had an early appointment, so I had to shovel my way out -- before coffee. I'm afraid that the first thing my neighbors heard that morning was some unneighborly language.
Still, even this unpleasant experience didn't make me crazy enough to entertain the notion that a snowstorm or two -- in a city where it snows every year -- could somehow disprove all the scientific evidence for climate change.
Nor did it even cross my mind that our Snowmageddon, inconvenient though it might be, could meaningfully alter the political debate over climate legislation. That would be idiotic. As comedian Stephen Colbert pointed out, it would be like looking outside at night, seeing the darkness and concluding that "the sun has been destroyed."
As even Sens. Inhofe and DeMint surely are aware, the Earth is really, really big. (And it's not flat. It's shaped like a ball. Honest.) It's so big that it can be cold here and warm elsewhere -- and this is the key concept -- at the same time. Even if it were unusually cold throughout the continental United States, that still represents less than 2 percent of the Earth's surface.
Those who want to use our harsh winter to "disprove" the theory that the planet's atmosphere is warming should realize that anecdotal evidence always cuts both ways. Before the Winter Olympics in Vancouver, crews were using earth-movers and aircraft to deposit snow on the ski runs -- the winter had been unusually warm. Preliminary data from climate scientists indicate that January, in terms of global temperatures, was actually hotter than usual. Revelers participating in Rio de Janeiro's annual carnival, which ended Tuesday, sweltered in atypical heat, with temperatures above 100 degrees. Fortunately, the custom during carnival is not to wear much in the way of clothing.
It has been a bad few months, to say the least, for those brave enough to still call themselves "climate scientists." First, some e-mails were unearthed that showed some leading researchers to be petty, vindictive and perhaps willing to ignore data that didn't fit their theories. Then it was learned that an official U.N. document on climate change overstated the rate at which Himalayan glaciers are believed to be melting. As other examples of sloppiness or imprecision emerged, the winter turned harsh. Critics piled on, sensing that the moment had arrived to kill any serious global effort to address humanity's impact on the temperature of the biosphere.
But here's what those bad few months can't change: After decades of study, scientists around the world have reached the conclusion that the Earth is warming and that humankind is responsible. The past decade was the warmest on record. Among the anticipated effects of climate change are increased precipitation -- not just rain, but also snow -- and bigger storms. What we've seen this winter tends to prove, not disprove, the scientific consensus that warming is real.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Here is What Evan Bayh Is Really Saying
From The Washington Post - The Fix - February 18, 2010:
Evan Bayh comes out against the filibuster
It took him a day or two, but Evan Bayh has finally begun saying why Washington doesn't work, rather than just complaining that it doesn't. Here he is saying that the filibuster should be 55 votes rather than 60, and fewer nominees should require Senate confirmation.
"The minority has rights, that's important, but the public has a right to see its business done, and not routinely allow a small minority to keep us from addressing the great issues that face this country," Bayh says. "I think the filibuster absolutely needs to be changed."
It's enough to make you wish the guy was sticking around to fight for his ideas.
Evan Bayh comes out against the filibuster
It took him a day or two, but Evan Bayh has finally begun saying why Washington doesn't work, rather than just complaining that it doesn't. Here he is saying that the filibuster should be 55 votes rather than 60, and fewer nominees should require Senate confirmation.
"The minority has rights, that's important, but the public has a right to see its business done, and not routinely allow a small minority to keep us from addressing the great issues that face this country," Bayh says. "I think the filibuster absolutely needs to be changed."
It's enough to make you wish the guy was sticking around to fight for his ideas.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Evan Bayh Is Being Misquoted
According to the Internet Blogosphere, Evan Bayh said:
"[I]f I could create one job in the private sector by helping to grow a business, that would be one more than Congress has created in the last six months."
However, according to The New York Times, the actual facts are:
"Perhaps the best-known economic research firms are IHS Global Insight, Macroeconomic Advisers and Moody’s Economy.com. They all estimate that the bill has added 1.6 million to 1.8 million jobs so far and that its ultimate impact will be roughly 2.5 million jobs. The Congressional Budget Office, an independent agency, considers these estimates to be conservative."
"[I]f I could create one job in the private sector by helping to grow a business, that would be one more than Congress has created in the last six months."
However, according to The New York Times, the actual facts are:
"Perhaps the best-known economic research firms are IHS Global Insight, Macroeconomic Advisers and Moody’s Economy.com. They all estimate that the bill has added 1.6 million to 1.8 million jobs so far and that its ultimate impact will be roughly 2.5 million jobs. The Congressional Budget Office, an independent agency, considers these estimates to be conservative."
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Dick Cheney Says Something Sensible -- Has The Red Sea Parted?
Dick Cheney's Dose of Reality on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
By Eugene Robinson -- The Washington Post -- Tuesday, February 16, 2010:
Do you believe in miracles? I do, and here's the proof: Dick Cheney said something reasonable.
A telling shift from Cheney
I heard it with my own ears. In the latest of his regular Sunday morning fireside chats, when he customarily tries to scare the nation silly with ghost stories and other tall tales, Cheney said it's time to "reconsider" the ridiculous "don't ask, don't tell" ban on gays in the military and added that he believes the policy will be changed.
Unsurprisingly, that nugget of good sense came amid an avalanche of the usual blather. Speaking on ABC's "This Week," Cheney demonstrated once again that he spends most of his time in some parallel universe. In the real world, the Obama administration inherited an unnecessary and ill-advised war in Iraq whose main geopolitical impact has been to strengthen neighboring Iran and its dangerous regime. But in Bizarro Cheney World, apparently, Obama somehow owes his predecessor "a healthy dose of 'thank you, George Bush.' "
Cheney also criticized the administration's anti-terror policies -- or, rather, the Obama team's "mind-set." One of his specific gripes was Obama's ban on torture. "I was a big supporter of waterboarding," said the former vice president of the United States.
If the Bush-Cheney administration's White House lawyers could invent a legal justification for torture, can't somebody come up with a theory that would allow retroactive impeachment?
But back to the news: Cheney became perhaps the most prominent conservative voice thus far to speak out in support -- or, at least, acceptance -- of the Obama administration's decision to end "don't ask, don't tell" and allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military.
Cheney stopped short of saying flatly that he advocated a change. He based his view that "it's time to reconsider the policy" on the public statements of Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other military brass in support of ditching "don't ask, don't tell." But Cheney did volunteer that "things have changed significantly" in the two decades since he ran the Pentagon as secretary of defense under George Bush the Elder. "I think the society has moved on," he said. "I think it's partly a generational question."
Last week, a Post-ABC News poll found that 75 percent of Americans favor letting gay people serve openly in the military. This compares with just 44 percent when the poll asked the question in 1993.
Those in favor of tolerance include 64 percent of Republicans -- along with bigger majorities of Democrats and independents -- and, in what may be the poll's most significant finding, 81 percent of adults under 30. In other words, abandoning the policy has overwhelming support in the age group that the nation depends on to enlist in the all-volunteer armed forces.
Four out of five respondents who said they have a gay friend or family member favored allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly. It's relevant to note that one of Cheney's daughters, Mary, is a lesbian who lives with her longtime partner, Heather Poe, and their two children. It's also worth mentioning that Cheney has said that he has no objection to gay marriage and believes that the issue should be left up to the states -- a stance that puts him considerably to the left of President Obama, who says he opposes gay marriage.
"I think that freedom means freedom for everyone," Cheney said last June. "As many of you know, one of my daughters is gay, and it is something we have lived with for a long time in our family. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish."
What does this tell us? Basically, that once or twice a year Cheney says something reasonable about gay rights before hastily retreating to his fortress of solitude, where he worries that archvillain Saddam Hussein still plots to use his stockpile of imaginary weapons of mass destruction against the United States, despite the impediment of being deceased.
But Cheney's burst of lucidity should help Republicans in Congress understand that there is no longer any reliable constituency for the troglodyte position on "don't ask, don't tell." If a long-overdue policy shift that would allow gay people to serve openly in the armed forces is fine with three-fourths of the American public, the top officers in the Pentagon hierarchy and Dick Cheney, too, then the times aren't just a-changing. They've already changed.
By Eugene Robinson -- The Washington Post -- Tuesday, February 16, 2010:
Do you believe in miracles? I do, and here's the proof: Dick Cheney said something reasonable.
A telling shift from Cheney
I heard it with my own ears. In the latest of his regular Sunday morning fireside chats, when he customarily tries to scare the nation silly with ghost stories and other tall tales, Cheney said it's time to "reconsider" the ridiculous "don't ask, don't tell" ban on gays in the military and added that he believes the policy will be changed.
Unsurprisingly, that nugget of good sense came amid an avalanche of the usual blather. Speaking on ABC's "This Week," Cheney demonstrated once again that he spends most of his time in some parallel universe. In the real world, the Obama administration inherited an unnecessary and ill-advised war in Iraq whose main geopolitical impact has been to strengthen neighboring Iran and its dangerous regime. But in Bizarro Cheney World, apparently, Obama somehow owes his predecessor "a healthy dose of 'thank you, George Bush.' "
Cheney also criticized the administration's anti-terror policies -- or, rather, the Obama team's "mind-set." One of his specific gripes was Obama's ban on torture. "I was a big supporter of waterboarding," said the former vice president of the United States.
If the Bush-Cheney administration's White House lawyers could invent a legal justification for torture, can't somebody come up with a theory that would allow retroactive impeachment?
But back to the news: Cheney became perhaps the most prominent conservative voice thus far to speak out in support -- or, at least, acceptance -- of the Obama administration's decision to end "don't ask, don't tell" and allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military.
Cheney stopped short of saying flatly that he advocated a change. He based his view that "it's time to reconsider the policy" on the public statements of Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other military brass in support of ditching "don't ask, don't tell." But Cheney did volunteer that "things have changed significantly" in the two decades since he ran the Pentagon as secretary of defense under George Bush the Elder. "I think the society has moved on," he said. "I think it's partly a generational question."
Last week, a Post-ABC News poll found that 75 percent of Americans favor letting gay people serve openly in the military. This compares with just 44 percent when the poll asked the question in 1993.
Those in favor of tolerance include 64 percent of Republicans -- along with bigger majorities of Democrats and independents -- and, in what may be the poll's most significant finding, 81 percent of adults under 30. In other words, abandoning the policy has overwhelming support in the age group that the nation depends on to enlist in the all-volunteer armed forces.
Four out of five respondents who said they have a gay friend or family member favored allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly. It's relevant to note that one of Cheney's daughters, Mary, is a lesbian who lives with her longtime partner, Heather Poe, and their two children. It's also worth mentioning that Cheney has said that he has no objection to gay marriage and believes that the issue should be left up to the states -- a stance that puts him considerably to the left of President Obama, who says he opposes gay marriage.
"I think that freedom means freedom for everyone," Cheney said last June. "As many of you know, one of my daughters is gay, and it is something we have lived with for a long time in our family. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish."
What does this tell us? Basically, that once or twice a year Cheney says something reasonable about gay rights before hastily retreating to his fortress of solitude, where he worries that archvillain Saddam Hussein still plots to use his stockpile of imaginary weapons of mass destruction against the United States, despite the impediment of being deceased.
But Cheney's burst of lucidity should help Republicans in Congress understand that there is no longer any reliable constituency for the troglodyte position on "don't ask, don't tell." If a long-overdue policy shift that would allow gay people to serve openly in the armed forces is fine with three-fourths of the American public, the top officers in the Pentagon hierarchy and Dick Cheney, too, then the times aren't just a-changing. They've already changed.
Why Dick Cheney Is the Democrats' Best Ally
From The Washington Post -- The Fix -- February 16, 2010:
Dick Cheney vs. Joe Biden (and why it's good for Democrats)
The twin appearances by Vice President Biden and former vice president Dick Cheney on Sunday talk shows yesterday were highly anticipated by political junkies and, by and large, they delivered. Cheney, appearing on "This Week" with Jon Karl, took umbrage with President Obama's initial description of the attempted Christmas Day bombing as the work of an "isolated extremist," arguing that it is evidence of a "mindset" that suggests the current administration does not understand the state of play with regard to the central national security issue of the post-9/11 world. "What the administration was slow to do was to come to that recognition that we are at war, not dealing with criminal acts," Cheney told Karl. Biden, who appeared on "Meet the Press" and "Face the Nation," pulled no punches when talking about Cheney. "All I know is he's factually, substantively wrong on the major criticisms he is asserting," Biden said of Cheney. "Why he's insisting on that, he either is misinformed or he is misinforming. But the facts are that his assertions are not accurate." While today's coverage is sure to focus on the Cheney versus Biden dynamic, the underlying debate is a good one for the White House for two reasons. First, the most recent Washington Post/ABC poll showed President Obama's approval ratings on most domestic issues were mediocre but on the issue of terrorism his numbers were strong with 56 percent approving of his handling of the issue and 39 percent disapproving. Given that data, Republican strategists would much prefer a message focused on the economy and health care rather than terrorism. Second, as we've noted before, Cheney is a flawed messenger at best. In an Associated Press survey conducted in mid-January just 38 percent had a favorable impression of Cheney while 55 percent saw the former vice president in an unfavorable light. The more Cheney talks -- about almost anything -- the more people (especially independent voters) are reminded about what they didn't like about the last administration. And, that's very good for the Obama White House.
Dick Cheney vs. Joe Biden (and why it's good for Democrats)
The twin appearances by Vice President Biden and former vice president Dick Cheney on Sunday talk shows yesterday were highly anticipated by political junkies and, by and large, they delivered. Cheney, appearing on "This Week" with Jon Karl, took umbrage with President Obama's initial description of the attempted Christmas Day bombing as the work of an "isolated extremist," arguing that it is evidence of a "mindset" that suggests the current administration does not understand the state of play with regard to the central national security issue of the post-9/11 world. "What the administration was slow to do was to come to that recognition that we are at war, not dealing with criminal acts," Cheney told Karl. Biden, who appeared on "Meet the Press" and "Face the Nation," pulled no punches when talking about Cheney. "All I know is he's factually, substantively wrong on the major criticisms he is asserting," Biden said of Cheney. "Why he's insisting on that, he either is misinformed or he is misinforming. But the facts are that his assertions are not accurate." While today's coverage is sure to focus on the Cheney versus Biden dynamic, the underlying debate is a good one for the White House for two reasons. First, the most recent Washington Post/ABC poll showed President Obama's approval ratings on most domestic issues were mediocre but on the issue of terrorism his numbers were strong with 56 percent approving of his handling of the issue and 39 percent disapproving. Given that data, Republican strategists would much prefer a message focused on the economy and health care rather than terrorism. Second, as we've noted before, Cheney is a flawed messenger at best. In an Associated Press survey conducted in mid-January just 38 percent had a favorable impression of Cheney while 55 percent saw the former vice president in an unfavorable light. The more Cheney talks -- about almost anything -- the more people (especially independent voters) are reminded about what they didn't like about the last administration. And, that's very good for the Obama White House.
Why Is The GOP So Homophobic?
Far Right Republicans aren't Homophobic.
They're simply Anti-Gay Marriage, Anti-Gays serving openly in the military, Anti-Barney Frank, and Anti-Gay Sex.
I guess they're the Anti-Auntie Party.
They're simply Anti-Gay Marriage, Anti-Gays serving openly in the military, Anti-Barney Frank, and Anti-Gay Sex.
I guess they're the Anti-Auntie Party.
Another Setback for the GOP -- Taliban's Second In Command Captured in Pakistan
Well, now, just yesterday, Republicans were complaining that the Obama Administration was killing Taliban terrorists instead of capturing them and interrogating them for valuable military information. What will Republicans complain about today -- that Obama's forces captured Mullah Baradar instead of killing him?
The fact is that the Obama administration has made far more progress in one year in combating the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan than the Bush-Cheney administration made in eight years. The Bush-Cheney ill-advised foray into Iraq tied up our forces in the wrong country and paralyzed US efforts in the areas where Al Quaida was really concentrated.
Obama's intensive and superb diplomacy over the past year have made a new level of cooperation possible between the American and Pakistani militaries, which is now resulting in our current military successes.
Let us never forget the Bush-Cheney Lost Decade. Let us never cease to talk about it. Let us keep reminding the folks of what Hell awaits the American people if the Far Right ever regains power in this country.
Here's the latest news:
Afghan Taliban's second in command captured in Karachi
By Karen DeYoung -- The Washington Post -- Tuesday, February 16, 2010
The Afghan Taliban's second in command, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, was captured last week in Karachi during a joint operation by Pakistan's intelligence service and the CIA, according to U.S. and Pakistani sources.
Deputy to Taliban leader Mohammad Omar, Baradar has been considered by many to be in de facto control of the insurgent organization in recent years. His capture is by far the most important detention since the beginning of the war in Afghanistan in 2001 and the first known capture of a top-ranking insurgent during the Obama administration.
The sources, who would speak only on condition of anonymity about the highly secret operation, said that the information had been tightly held to prevent word leaking to other senior Taliban commanders while Baradar was being interrogated. They said the interrogation was being conducted jointly by Pakistani and U.S. intelligence officials and is seen as a major step forward in cooperation between the two services, which has been rocky in the past.
CIA officials have charged that Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate has maintained ties with senior Taliban figures and has not acted on U.S.-provided intelligence, and Pakistani officials have blamed the CIA for faulty cooperation.
Results of Baradar's questioning have been circulating in Washington since he was detained Wednesday. His capture was first reported Monday night on the New York Times's Web site.
The former deputy defense minister in the Taliban government in Afghanistan, Baradar has gradually taken control of the Taliban leadership council based in Quetta, Pakistan. "He makes the Taliban run," said Seth G. Jones, a senior political scientist at the Rand Corporation and Taliban expert who recently returned from an advisory position with the U.S. military command in Afghanistan.
Omar, Jones said, "tends to be fairly reclusive and unpolished. Baradar is the one who deals with the operational side."
Baradar ran many of the shuras, or conferences, involving senior Taliban commanders; controlled shadow governments in Afghanistan; and made many of the organization's day-to-day decisions. He is thought to have been responsible for a code of conduct distributed last year to field commanders, instructing them to use less brutal tactics in dealing with Afghan civilians in the Taliban's version of the "hearts and minds" campaign undertaken by the international military force there.
A member of the Popolzai tribe of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, Baradar was rumored last year to be involved in tentative reconciliation talks with the government, reports he denied in an e-mail interview with Newsweek magazine. "Not a single member of the Taliban is involved with talks," he said at the time.
"What would be the topic of the talks and what would be the result?" he said. "Our basic problem with the Americans is that they have attacked our country. They are offering talks, hoping that the mujahedin surrender before them." The basic condition for any dialogue, he said, "is the withdrawal of foreign forces from Afghanistan."
Published accounts in Afghanistan in December cited reports of disagreements between Baradar and Omar, saying that the No. 2 had made decisions over the appointments of military commanders inside Afghanistan without consulting the Taliban head.
According to an Interpol notice on Baradar, he was born in 1968 in Uruzgan province in south-central Afghanistan. Baradar is one of a number of senior Taliban officials on a U.N. sanctions list.
The fact is that the Obama administration has made far more progress in one year in combating the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan than the Bush-Cheney administration made in eight years. The Bush-Cheney ill-advised foray into Iraq tied up our forces in the wrong country and paralyzed US efforts in the areas where Al Quaida was really concentrated.
Obama's intensive and superb diplomacy over the past year have made a new level of cooperation possible between the American and Pakistani militaries, which is now resulting in our current military successes.
Let us never forget the Bush-Cheney Lost Decade. Let us never cease to talk about it. Let us keep reminding the folks of what Hell awaits the American people if the Far Right ever regains power in this country.
Here's the latest news:
Afghan Taliban's second in command captured in Karachi
By Karen DeYoung -- The Washington Post -- Tuesday, February 16, 2010
The Afghan Taliban's second in command, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, was captured last week in Karachi during a joint operation by Pakistan's intelligence service and the CIA, according to U.S. and Pakistani sources.
Deputy to Taliban leader Mohammad Omar, Baradar has been considered by many to be in de facto control of the insurgent organization in recent years. His capture is by far the most important detention since the beginning of the war in Afghanistan in 2001 and the first known capture of a top-ranking insurgent during the Obama administration.
The sources, who would speak only on condition of anonymity about the highly secret operation, said that the information had been tightly held to prevent word leaking to other senior Taliban commanders while Baradar was being interrogated. They said the interrogation was being conducted jointly by Pakistani and U.S. intelligence officials and is seen as a major step forward in cooperation between the two services, which has been rocky in the past.
CIA officials have charged that Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate has maintained ties with senior Taliban figures and has not acted on U.S.-provided intelligence, and Pakistani officials have blamed the CIA for faulty cooperation.
Results of Baradar's questioning have been circulating in Washington since he was detained Wednesday. His capture was first reported Monday night on the New York Times's Web site.
The former deputy defense minister in the Taliban government in Afghanistan, Baradar has gradually taken control of the Taliban leadership council based in Quetta, Pakistan. "He makes the Taliban run," said Seth G. Jones, a senior political scientist at the Rand Corporation and Taliban expert who recently returned from an advisory position with the U.S. military command in Afghanistan.
Omar, Jones said, "tends to be fairly reclusive and unpolished. Baradar is the one who deals with the operational side."
Baradar ran many of the shuras, or conferences, involving senior Taliban commanders; controlled shadow governments in Afghanistan; and made many of the organization's day-to-day decisions. He is thought to have been responsible for a code of conduct distributed last year to field commanders, instructing them to use less brutal tactics in dealing with Afghan civilians in the Taliban's version of the "hearts and minds" campaign undertaken by the international military force there.
A member of the Popolzai tribe of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, Baradar was rumored last year to be involved in tentative reconciliation talks with the government, reports he denied in an e-mail interview with Newsweek magazine. "Not a single member of the Taliban is involved with talks," he said at the time.
"What would be the topic of the talks and what would be the result?" he said. "Our basic problem with the Americans is that they have attacked our country. They are offering talks, hoping that the mujahedin surrender before them." The basic condition for any dialogue, he said, "is the withdrawal of foreign forces from Afghanistan."
Published accounts in Afghanistan in December cited reports of disagreements between Baradar and Omar, saying that the No. 2 had made decisions over the appointments of military commanders inside Afghanistan without consulting the Taliban head.
According to an Interpol notice on Baradar, he was born in 1968 in Uruzgan province in south-central Afghanistan. Baradar is one of a number of senior Taliban officials on a U.N. sanctions list.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Republican Senate Minority Is Wrecking America
Another great contribution from Anon 2. Thank you for sending it in, Anon 2. Keep telling the world how the GOP continues to destroy this country.
RUSH IS RIGHT: If I wanted America to fail, I'd be a Republican, too.
From : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-tom-harkin/fixing-the-filibuster_b_459969.html:
"After the recent blizzard, a newspaper columnist noted that Washington had been "immobilized by snow." "This is highly unusual," she quipped. "Normally, Washington is immobilized by Senators."
It's a funny line. But the unprecedented abuse of the filibuster by Republicans is no joke.
When many people think of the filibuster, it brings to mind the classic 1939 film, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. But Senator Smith -- Jimmy Stewart's character -- was a little guy using the filibuster to stop the special interests. Today, that has been turned upside-down. It is the special interests using the filibuster to stop legislation that would benefit the little guy.
Among other bills, Republicans have filibustered legislation to provide low-income energy assistance; efforts to strengthen the Consumer Product Safety Commission to ensure our children are not exposed to unsafe toys; and efforts to ensure that women are guaranteed equal pay for equal work.
The problem is not only that Republicans are using the filibuster to kill good bills that would help working Americans. The larger problem is that the Republicans' indiscriminate use of the filibuster has made it all but impossible to conduct everyday business in the Senate. On an almost daily basis, the Republican minority -- just 41 Senators -- stops bills from even coming to the floor for debate and amendment.
In the 1950s, an average of one bill was filibustered in each two-year Congress. In the last Congress, 139 bills were filibustered. The Republican abuse of the filibuster is unprecedented, routine, and increasingly reckless.
Just last week, a Republican Senator blocked the nomination of every single executive branch nominee -- 70 in all. This isn't about reasoned opposition. It is about systematic, indiscriminate obstruction of the majority's ability to conduct even routine, non-controversial business.
The Senate cannot continue down this path of obstruction, paralysis, and de facto minority rule. That is why I have introduced a bill to change the Standing Rules of the Senate to reform the cloture procedure in the United States Senate.
Currently, it takes 60 votes in the Senate to "invoke cloture" -- in other words, to end debate on a legislative measure and bring it to a vote. My legislation would permit a decreasing number of Senators to invoke cloture on a given measure. On the first cloture attempt, 60 votes would be required. But, over a period of days or weeks, the number of votes required would fall to a simple majority of 51 Senators.
I want to emphasize that I am offering this bill with clean hands. I introduced the exact same bill in 1995, when Democrats were in the minority in the Senate. So this legislation is not about one party or the other gaining advantage. It is about the Senate, as an institution, operating more fairly, effectively, and small-d democratically.
It takes 67 votes to change the Senate rules -- which, I acknowledge, is a tall order. But, by introducing this bill, I want to shine a spotlight on the egregious abuse of the filibuster, and how that abuse is paralyzing our democracy and making a mockery of the concept of majority rule.
I do not see how we can effectively govern a 21st century superpower when a minority of just 41 Senators can dictate action -- or chronic inaction - not just to a majority of Senators, but to a majority of the American people. It is time to fix the filibuster, and make our nation governable, once again."
RUSH IS RIGHT: If I wanted America to fail, I'd be a Republican, too.
From : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-tom-harkin/fixing-the-filibuster_b_459969.html:
"After the recent blizzard, a newspaper columnist noted that Washington had been "immobilized by snow." "This is highly unusual," she quipped. "Normally, Washington is immobilized by Senators."
It's a funny line. But the unprecedented abuse of the filibuster by Republicans is no joke.
When many people think of the filibuster, it brings to mind the classic 1939 film, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. But Senator Smith -- Jimmy Stewart's character -- was a little guy using the filibuster to stop the special interests. Today, that has been turned upside-down. It is the special interests using the filibuster to stop legislation that would benefit the little guy.
Among other bills, Republicans have filibustered legislation to provide low-income energy assistance; efforts to strengthen the Consumer Product Safety Commission to ensure our children are not exposed to unsafe toys; and efforts to ensure that women are guaranteed equal pay for equal work.
The problem is not only that Republicans are using the filibuster to kill good bills that would help working Americans. The larger problem is that the Republicans' indiscriminate use of the filibuster has made it all but impossible to conduct everyday business in the Senate. On an almost daily basis, the Republican minority -- just 41 Senators -- stops bills from even coming to the floor for debate and amendment.
In the 1950s, an average of one bill was filibustered in each two-year Congress. In the last Congress, 139 bills were filibustered. The Republican abuse of the filibuster is unprecedented, routine, and increasingly reckless.
Just last week, a Republican Senator blocked the nomination of every single executive branch nominee -- 70 in all. This isn't about reasoned opposition. It is about systematic, indiscriminate obstruction of the majority's ability to conduct even routine, non-controversial business.
The Senate cannot continue down this path of obstruction, paralysis, and de facto minority rule. That is why I have introduced a bill to change the Standing Rules of the Senate to reform the cloture procedure in the United States Senate.
Currently, it takes 60 votes in the Senate to "invoke cloture" -- in other words, to end debate on a legislative measure and bring it to a vote. My legislation would permit a decreasing number of Senators to invoke cloture on a given measure. On the first cloture attempt, 60 votes would be required. But, over a period of days or weeks, the number of votes required would fall to a simple majority of 51 Senators.
I want to emphasize that I am offering this bill with clean hands. I introduced the exact same bill in 1995, when Democrats were in the minority in the Senate. So this legislation is not about one party or the other gaining advantage. It is about the Senate, as an institution, operating more fairly, effectively, and small-d democratically.
It takes 67 votes to change the Senate rules -- which, I acknowledge, is a tall order. But, by introducing this bill, I want to shine a spotlight on the egregious abuse of the filibuster, and how that abuse is paralyzing our democracy and making a mockery of the concept of majority rule.
I do not see how we can effectively govern a 21st century superpower when a minority of just 41 Senators can dictate action -- or chronic inaction - not just to a majority of Senators, but to a majority of the American people. It is time to fix the filibuster, and make our nation governable, once again."
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Joe Biden Blasts Dick Cheney: Cheney Is Either Misinformed or He is Misinforming
From Meet The Press -- February 14, 2010:
DAVID GREGORY: 'Let me ask you about some of the criticism that's been leveled at this Administration by former Vice President Dick Cheney.' ...
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: 'Let me choose my words carefully here. Dick Cheney's a fine fellow. He's entitled to his own opinion. He's not entitled to rewrite history. He's not entitled to his own facts. The Christmas Day Bomber was treated the exact way that he suggested that the Shoe Bomber was treated. Absolutely the same way. Under Bush, three Al Quaida operatives were tried in military tribunals and two of them are now out walking the streets. Over three hundred were tried in federal courts and they are now still in prison. ... Dick Cheney's a fine fellow, but he is not entitled to rewrite history without it being challenged. I don't know where he has been. Where was he the last four years of the Bush administration?'
GREGORY: 'What about the general proposition that the President according to former Vice President Cheney doesn't consider America to be at war and is essentially soft on terrorism?' ...
BIDEN: 'I don't think ... former Vice President Dick Cheney listens. The President of the United States said in the State of the Union, 'We're at war with Al Qaeda.' He stated this--- and by the way, we're pursuing that war with a vigor like it's never been seen before. We've eliminated 12 of their top 20 people. We have taken out 100 of their associates. ... [W]e've sent them underground. They are in fact not able to do anything remotely like they were in the past. They are on the run. I don't know where Dick Cheney has been. Look, it's one thing ... to criticize. It's another thing to sort of rewrite history. What is he talking about? ... I'm not gonna guess about his motive. All I know is he's factually, substantively wrong. On the major criticisms he is asserting. ...
'He either is misinformed or he is misinforming. But the facts are that his assertions are not accurate. ... [L]ook, it's one thing to be outspoken. It's another thing to be outspoken in a way that misrepresents the facts. ... [I]t's almost like Dick is trying to rewrite history. I can understand ... why that would be ... an impulse. And maybe he isn't-- literally, I'm not being facetious: Maybe he's not fully informed of what's going on. I mean, the progress we have made. There has never been as much emphasis and resources brought against Al Qaeda. The success rate exceeds anything that occurred in the last administration. And they did their best. I'm not impugning their effort. It's simply not true that the president of the United States is not prosecuting the war against Al Qaeda with a vigor that's never been seen before. It's real. It's deep. It's successful.'
DAVID GREGORY: 'Let me ask you about some of the criticism that's been leveled at this Administration by former Vice President Dick Cheney.' ...
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: 'Let me choose my words carefully here. Dick Cheney's a fine fellow. He's entitled to his own opinion. He's not entitled to rewrite history. He's not entitled to his own facts. The Christmas Day Bomber was treated the exact way that he suggested that the Shoe Bomber was treated. Absolutely the same way. Under Bush, three Al Quaida operatives were tried in military tribunals and two of them are now out walking the streets. Over three hundred were tried in federal courts and they are now still in prison. ... Dick Cheney's a fine fellow, but he is not entitled to rewrite history without it being challenged. I don't know where he has been. Where was he the last four years of the Bush administration?'
GREGORY: 'What about the general proposition that the President according to former Vice President Cheney doesn't consider America to be at war and is essentially soft on terrorism?' ...
BIDEN: 'I don't think ... former Vice President Dick Cheney listens. The President of the United States said in the State of the Union, 'We're at war with Al Qaeda.' He stated this--- and by the way, we're pursuing that war with a vigor like it's never been seen before. We've eliminated 12 of their top 20 people. We have taken out 100 of their associates. ... [W]e've sent them underground. They are in fact not able to do anything remotely like they were in the past. They are on the run. I don't know where Dick Cheney has been. Look, it's one thing ... to criticize. It's another thing to sort of rewrite history. What is he talking about? ... I'm not gonna guess about his motive. All I know is he's factually, substantively wrong. On the major criticisms he is asserting. ...
'He either is misinformed or he is misinforming. But the facts are that his assertions are not accurate. ... [L]ook, it's one thing to be outspoken. It's another thing to be outspoken in a way that misrepresents the facts. ... [I]t's almost like Dick is trying to rewrite history. I can understand ... why that would be ... an impulse. And maybe he isn't-- literally, I'm not being facetious: Maybe he's not fully informed of what's going on. I mean, the progress we have made. There has never been as much emphasis and resources brought against Al Qaeda. The success rate exceeds anything that occurred in the last administration. And they did their best. I'm not impugning their effort. It's simply not true that the president of the United States is not prosecuting the war against Al Qaeda with a vigor that's never been seen before. It's real. It's deep. It's successful.'
The Obama Administration Is Killing More Terrorists and Saving More American Lives
Under Obama, the USA is killing more terrorists and saving the lives of more American troops, as we continue to clean up the Al Quaida-Taliban mess in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, etc. No wonder Conservatives are so outraged. We are actually going after the terrorists where they really are. Whatever happened to the Bush-Cheney doctrine of water-boarding -- and invading countries that didn't attack us and where Al Quaida has no presence? Conservatives really miss their Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight.
Here's the latest:
Under Obama, More Targeted Killings than Captures in Counterterrorism Efforts
By Karen DeYoung and Joby Warrick
The Washington Post -- Sunday, February 14, 2010
When a window of opportunity opened to strike the leader of al-Qaeda in East Africa last September, U.S. Special Operations forces prepared several options. They could obliterate his vehicle with an airstrike as he drove through southern Somalia. Or they could fire from helicopters that could land at the scene to confirm the kill. Or they could try to take him alive.
The White House authorized the second option. On the morning of Sept. 14, helicopters flying from a U.S. ship off the Somali coast blew up a car carrying Saleh Ali Nabhan. While several hovered overhead, one set down long enough for troops to scoop up enough of the remains for DNA verification. Moments later, the helicopters were headed back to the ship.
The strike was considered a major success, according to senior administration and military officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the classified operation and other sensitive matters. But the opportunity to interrogate one of the most wanted U.S. terrorism targets was gone forever.
The Nabhan decision was one of a number of similar choices the administration has faced over the past year as President Obama has escalated U.S. attacks on the leadership of al-Qaeda and its allies around the globe. The result has been dozens of targeted killings and no reports of high-value detentions.
Although senior administration officials say that no policy determination has been made to emphasize kills over captures, several factors appear to have tipped the balance in that direction. The Obama administration has authorized such attacks more frequently than the George W. Bush administration did in its final years, including in countries where U.S. ground operations are officially unwelcome or especially dangerous. Improvements in electronic surveillance and precision targeting have made killing from a distance much more of a sure thing. At the same time, options for where to keep U.S. captives have dwindled.
Republican critics, already scornful of limits placed on interrogation of the suspect in the Christmas Day bombing attempt, charge that the administration has been too reluctant to risk an international incident or a domestic lawsuit to capture senior terrorism figures alive and imprison them.
"Over a year after taking office, the administration has still failed to answer the hard questions about what to do if we have the opportunity to capture and detain a terrorist overseas, which has made our terror-fighters reluctant to capture and left our allies confused," Sen. Christopher S. Bond (Mo.), the ranking Republican on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said Friday. "If given a choice between killing or capturing, we would probably kill."
Some military and intelligence officials, citing what they see as a new bias toward kills, questioned whether valuable intelligence is being lost in the process. "We wanted to take a prisoner," a senior military officer said of the Nabhan operation. "It was not a decision that we made."
Even during the Bush administration, "there was an inclination to 'just shoot the bastard,' " said a former intelligence official briefed on current operations. "But now there's an even greater proclivity for doing it that way. . . . We need to have the capability to snatch when the situation calls for it."
Lack of detention policy
One problem identified by those within and outside the government is the question of where to take captives apprehended outside established war zones and cooperating countries. "We've been trying to decide this for over a year," the senior military officer said. "When you don't have a detention policy or a set of facilities," he said, operational decisions become more difficult.
The administration has pledged to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; Congress has resisted moving any of the about 190 detainees remaining there, let alone terrorism suspects who have been recently captured, to this country. All of the CIA's former "black site" prisons have been shut down, and a U.S. official involved in operations planning confirmed that the agency has no terrorism suspects in its custody. Although the CIA retains the right to briefly retain terrorism suspects, any detainees would be quickly transferred to a military prison or an allied government with jurisdiction over the case, the official said.
Military officials emphasized that terrorism suspects continue to be captured in Iraq and Afghanistan. But in Iraq, where counterterrorism operations must be approved in advance by its government and conducted with Iraqi forces in the lead, all prisoners must be turned over to Baghdad.
In Afghanistan, the massive U.S.-run prison at the Bagram air base is scheduled to be relinquished to the Afghan government by the end of the year. Its 750 prisoners include about 30 foreigners, some of them captured in other countries and brought there. But recent legal decisions, and Afghan government restrictions, have largely eliminated that option.
"In some cases," the senior military official said, captives in Afghanistan have been taken to "other facilities" maintained by Special Operations forces. Such detentions, even on a temporary basis, have become more difficult because of legal and human rights concerns, he said.
Cooperation overseas
Outside the established war zones, senior administration and military officials said, how an operation is conducted and whether its goal is killing or capturing depend on where it is taking place and which U.S. agency is involved. American personnel have worked closely on counterterrorism missions with local forces in Indonesia, the Philippines and elsewhere, with those countries in the lead.
Al-Qaeda and Taliban havens in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas along the border are considered part of the Afghanistan war theater. The Pakistani government tacitly permits CIA-operated unmanned aircraft to target terrorist sites and militants up to 50 miles inside the country. Under an executive order first signed by Bush and continued in force under Obama, the CIA does not have to seek higher administration authority before striking.
But while U.S. Special Forces work closely with the CIA on the Afghan side of the border, any ground operation in Pakistan would require specific White House approval, which so far has not been granted. In addition to the difficulty such a mission would pose amid a hostile population in rugged terrain, the Pakistani government has drawn a red line against allowing U.S. boots on the ground, and the risk of sparking an anti-American backlash is seen as too great.
Beyond Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq, potentially lethal operations must be approved by Obama or his designee, which can include the CIA director and the defense secretary. In Yemen, stepped-up military and intelligence cooperation with the country's government, including the use of U.S. aircraft and munitions for raids against a list of targets suspected of involvement with terrorist groups, was approved by Obama late last year, and at least two lethal attacks have taken place in coordination with Yemeni ground forces. Any captives belong to Yemen.
The Somalia calculus
Somalia poses unique problems. In the vast majority of the country, there is no functioning government to approve or coordinate operations, or to take custody of captives. Under the Bush administration, the military conducted several White House-approved air operations against alleged senior terrorist figures fleeing south after the 2006 U.S.-backed ouster of the Islamic government there. But while military teams made quick forays over the border to the targeted sites, finding and identifying bodies proved difficult.
Nabhan, a 30-year-old Kenyan, had long been a prime U.S. target. A senior official in the al-Shabab militia fighting to overthrow the U.S.-supported transition government in Somalia and impose strict Islamic law, he was said to be the chief link between the main al-Qaeda organization and its East African allies. Wanted by the FBI in connection with the 1998 attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, he was also accused in the 2002 bombing of an Israeli-owned resort in Kenya and an attempt to shoot down an Israeli airliner that year.
After tracking him for a while, the Special Operations Command thought it had established a sufficient pattern of activity to target him and had the time to plan for it. Several alternatives, including capture, were developed and assessed under military procedures for missions outside recognized war theaters.
Planners were asked for more details on the proposed force to be used, intelligence proving the target's location and the level of verification, and operational details -- including, in the case of capture, where Nabhan would be taken. Planned under U.S. Central Command, the operation was turned over to the U.S. Africa Command for implementation.
On the political side, the National Security Council received detailed versions of each proposed course of action. At that level, the senior administration official said, "there is an evaluation making sure you are able to prosecute the mission successfully . . . and minimize the dangers and risks."
The Somalia calculus, several officials said, included weighing the likelihood that U.S. troops on the ground for any amount of time in the militia-controlled south would be particularly vulnerable to attack. Looming large, they said, was the memory of the last time a U.S. combat helicopter was on the ground in lawless Somalia, the 1993 Black Hawk debacle that resulted in the deaths of 18 soldiers.
"There are certain upsides and certain downsides to certain paths," the administration official said. "The safety and security of U.S. military personnel is always something the president keeps at the highest level of his calculus."
Here's the latest:
Under Obama, More Targeted Killings than Captures in Counterterrorism Efforts
By Karen DeYoung and Joby Warrick
The Washington Post -- Sunday, February 14, 2010
When a window of opportunity opened to strike the leader of al-Qaeda in East Africa last September, U.S. Special Operations forces prepared several options. They could obliterate his vehicle with an airstrike as he drove through southern Somalia. Or they could fire from helicopters that could land at the scene to confirm the kill. Or they could try to take him alive.
The White House authorized the second option. On the morning of Sept. 14, helicopters flying from a U.S. ship off the Somali coast blew up a car carrying Saleh Ali Nabhan. While several hovered overhead, one set down long enough for troops to scoop up enough of the remains for DNA verification. Moments later, the helicopters were headed back to the ship.
The strike was considered a major success, according to senior administration and military officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the classified operation and other sensitive matters. But the opportunity to interrogate one of the most wanted U.S. terrorism targets was gone forever.
The Nabhan decision was one of a number of similar choices the administration has faced over the past year as President Obama has escalated U.S. attacks on the leadership of al-Qaeda and its allies around the globe. The result has been dozens of targeted killings and no reports of high-value detentions.
Although senior administration officials say that no policy determination has been made to emphasize kills over captures, several factors appear to have tipped the balance in that direction. The Obama administration has authorized such attacks more frequently than the George W. Bush administration did in its final years, including in countries where U.S. ground operations are officially unwelcome or especially dangerous. Improvements in electronic surveillance and precision targeting have made killing from a distance much more of a sure thing. At the same time, options for where to keep U.S. captives have dwindled.
Republican critics, already scornful of limits placed on interrogation of the suspect in the Christmas Day bombing attempt, charge that the administration has been too reluctant to risk an international incident or a domestic lawsuit to capture senior terrorism figures alive and imprison them.
"Over a year after taking office, the administration has still failed to answer the hard questions about what to do if we have the opportunity to capture and detain a terrorist overseas, which has made our terror-fighters reluctant to capture and left our allies confused," Sen. Christopher S. Bond (Mo.), the ranking Republican on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said Friday. "If given a choice between killing or capturing, we would probably kill."
Some military and intelligence officials, citing what they see as a new bias toward kills, questioned whether valuable intelligence is being lost in the process. "We wanted to take a prisoner," a senior military officer said of the Nabhan operation. "It was not a decision that we made."
Even during the Bush administration, "there was an inclination to 'just shoot the bastard,' " said a former intelligence official briefed on current operations. "But now there's an even greater proclivity for doing it that way. . . . We need to have the capability to snatch when the situation calls for it."
Lack of detention policy
One problem identified by those within and outside the government is the question of where to take captives apprehended outside established war zones and cooperating countries. "We've been trying to decide this for over a year," the senior military officer said. "When you don't have a detention policy or a set of facilities," he said, operational decisions become more difficult.
The administration has pledged to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; Congress has resisted moving any of the about 190 detainees remaining there, let alone terrorism suspects who have been recently captured, to this country. All of the CIA's former "black site" prisons have been shut down, and a U.S. official involved in operations planning confirmed that the agency has no terrorism suspects in its custody. Although the CIA retains the right to briefly retain terrorism suspects, any detainees would be quickly transferred to a military prison or an allied government with jurisdiction over the case, the official said.
Military officials emphasized that terrorism suspects continue to be captured in Iraq and Afghanistan. But in Iraq, where counterterrorism operations must be approved in advance by its government and conducted with Iraqi forces in the lead, all prisoners must be turned over to Baghdad.
In Afghanistan, the massive U.S.-run prison at the Bagram air base is scheduled to be relinquished to the Afghan government by the end of the year. Its 750 prisoners include about 30 foreigners, some of them captured in other countries and brought there. But recent legal decisions, and Afghan government restrictions, have largely eliminated that option.
"In some cases," the senior military official said, captives in Afghanistan have been taken to "other facilities" maintained by Special Operations forces. Such detentions, even on a temporary basis, have become more difficult because of legal and human rights concerns, he said.
Cooperation overseas
Outside the established war zones, senior administration and military officials said, how an operation is conducted and whether its goal is killing or capturing depend on where it is taking place and which U.S. agency is involved. American personnel have worked closely on counterterrorism missions with local forces in Indonesia, the Philippines and elsewhere, with those countries in the lead.
Al-Qaeda and Taliban havens in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas along the border are considered part of the Afghanistan war theater. The Pakistani government tacitly permits CIA-operated unmanned aircraft to target terrorist sites and militants up to 50 miles inside the country. Under an executive order first signed by Bush and continued in force under Obama, the CIA does not have to seek higher administration authority before striking.
But while U.S. Special Forces work closely with the CIA on the Afghan side of the border, any ground operation in Pakistan would require specific White House approval, which so far has not been granted. In addition to the difficulty such a mission would pose amid a hostile population in rugged terrain, the Pakistani government has drawn a red line against allowing U.S. boots on the ground, and the risk of sparking an anti-American backlash is seen as too great.
Beyond Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq, potentially lethal operations must be approved by Obama or his designee, which can include the CIA director and the defense secretary. In Yemen, stepped-up military and intelligence cooperation with the country's government, including the use of U.S. aircraft and munitions for raids against a list of targets suspected of involvement with terrorist groups, was approved by Obama late last year, and at least two lethal attacks have taken place in coordination with Yemeni ground forces. Any captives belong to Yemen.
The Somalia calculus
Somalia poses unique problems. In the vast majority of the country, there is no functioning government to approve or coordinate operations, or to take custody of captives. Under the Bush administration, the military conducted several White House-approved air operations against alleged senior terrorist figures fleeing south after the 2006 U.S.-backed ouster of the Islamic government there. But while military teams made quick forays over the border to the targeted sites, finding and identifying bodies proved difficult.
Nabhan, a 30-year-old Kenyan, had long been a prime U.S. target. A senior official in the al-Shabab militia fighting to overthrow the U.S.-supported transition government in Somalia and impose strict Islamic law, he was said to be the chief link between the main al-Qaeda organization and its East African allies. Wanted by the FBI in connection with the 1998 attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, he was also accused in the 2002 bombing of an Israeli-owned resort in Kenya and an attempt to shoot down an Israeli airliner that year.
After tracking him for a while, the Special Operations Command thought it had established a sufficient pattern of activity to target him and had the time to plan for it. Several alternatives, including capture, were developed and assessed under military procedures for missions outside recognized war theaters.
Planners were asked for more details on the proposed force to be used, intelligence proving the target's location and the level of verification, and operational details -- including, in the case of capture, where Nabhan would be taken. Planned under U.S. Central Command, the operation was turned over to the U.S. Africa Command for implementation.
On the political side, the National Security Council received detailed versions of each proposed course of action. At that level, the senior administration official said, "there is an evaluation making sure you are able to prosecute the mission successfully . . . and minimize the dangers and risks."
The Somalia calculus, several officials said, included weighing the likelihood that U.S. troops on the ground for any amount of time in the militia-controlled south would be particularly vulnerable to attack. Looming large, they said, was the memory of the last time a U.S. combat helicopter was on the ground in lawless Somalia, the 1993 Black Hawk debacle that resulted in the deaths of 18 soldiers.
"There are certain upsides and certain downsides to certain paths," the administration official said. "The safety and security of U.S. military personnel is always something the president keeps at the highest level of his calculus."
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Republicans Lie About Medicare To Destroy Health Care Reform
Republicans and Medicare
By PAUL KRUGMAN
The New York Times -- February 11, 2010:
“Don’t cut Medicare. The reform bills passed by the House and Senate cut Medicare by approximately $500 billion. This is wrong.” So declared Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, in a recent op-ed article written with John Goodman, the president of the National Center for Policy Analysis.
And irony died.
Now, Mr. Gingrich was just repeating the current party line. Furious denunciations of any effort to seek cost savings in Medicare — death panels! — have been central to Republican efforts to demonize health reform. What’s amazing, however, is that they’re getting away with it.
Why is this amazing? It’s not just the fact that Republicans are now posing as staunch defenders of a program they have hated ever since the days when Ronald Reagan warned that Medicare would destroy America’s freedom. Nor is it even the fact that, as House speaker, Mr. Gingrich personally tried to ram through deep cuts in Medicare — and, in 1995, went so far as to shut down the federal government in an attempt to bully Bill Clinton into accepting those cuts.
After all, you could explain this about-face by supposing that Republicans have had a change of heart, that they have finally realized just how much good Medicare does. And if you believe that, I’ve got some mortgage-backed securities you might want to buy.
No, what’s truly mind-boggling is this: Even as Republicans denounce modest proposals to rein in Medicare’s rising costs, they are, themselves, seeking to dismantle the whole program. And the process of dismantling would begin with spending cuts of about $650 billion over the next decade. Math is hard, but I do believe that’s more than the roughly $400 billion (not $500 billion) in Medicare savings projected for the Democratic health bills.
What I’m talking about here is the “Roadmap for America’s Future,” the budget plan recently released by Representative Paul Ryan, the ranking Republican member of the House Budget Committee. Other leading Republicans have been bobbing and weaving on the official status of this proposal, but it’s pretty clear that Mr. Ryan’s vision does, in fact, represent what the G.O.P. would try to do if it returns to power.
The broad picture that emerges from the “roadmap” is of an economic agenda that hasn’t changed one iota in response to the economic failures of the Bush years. In particular, Mr. Ryan offers a plan for Social Security privatization that is basically identical to the Bush proposals of five years ago.
But what’s really worth noting, given the way the G.O.P. has campaigned against health care reform, is what Mr. Ryan proposes doing with and to Medicare.
In the Ryan proposal, nobody currently under the age of 55 would be covered by Medicare as it now exists. Instead, people would receive vouchers and be told to buy their own insurance. And even this new, privatized version of Medicare would erode over time because the value of these vouchers would almost surely lag ever further behind the actual cost of health insurance. By the time Americans now in their 20s or 30s reached the age of eligibility, there wouldn’t be much of a Medicare program left.
But what about those who already are covered by Medicare, or will enter the program over the next decade? You’re safe, says the roadmap; you’ll still be eligible for traditional Medicare. Except, that is, for the fact that the plan “strengthens the current program with changes such as income-relating drug benefit premiums to ensure long-term sustainability.”
If this sounds like deliberately confusing gobbledygook, that’s because it is. Fortunately, the Congressional Budget Office, which has done an evaluation of the roadmap, offers a translation: “Some higher-income enrollees would pay higher premiums, and some program payments would be reduced.” In short, there would be Medicare cuts.
And it’s possible to back out the size of those cuts from the budget office analysis, which compares the Ryan proposal with a “baseline” representing current policy. As I’ve already said, the total over the next decade comes to about $650 billion — substantially bigger than the Medicare savings in the Democratic bills.
The bottom line, then, is that the crusade against health reform has relied, crucially, on utter hypocrisy: Republicans who hate Medicare, tried to slash Medicare in the past, and still aim to dismantle the program over time, have been scoring political points by denouncing proposals for modest cost savings — savings that are substantially smaller than the spending cuts buried in their own proposals.
And if Democrats don’t get their act together and push the almost-completed reform across the goal line, this breathtaking act of staggering hypocrisy will succeed.
By PAUL KRUGMAN
The New York Times -- February 11, 2010:
“Don’t cut Medicare. The reform bills passed by the House and Senate cut Medicare by approximately $500 billion. This is wrong.” So declared Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, in a recent op-ed article written with John Goodman, the president of the National Center for Policy Analysis.
And irony died.
Now, Mr. Gingrich was just repeating the current party line. Furious denunciations of any effort to seek cost savings in Medicare — death panels! — have been central to Republican efforts to demonize health reform. What’s amazing, however, is that they’re getting away with it.
Why is this amazing? It’s not just the fact that Republicans are now posing as staunch defenders of a program they have hated ever since the days when Ronald Reagan warned that Medicare would destroy America’s freedom. Nor is it even the fact that, as House speaker, Mr. Gingrich personally tried to ram through deep cuts in Medicare — and, in 1995, went so far as to shut down the federal government in an attempt to bully Bill Clinton into accepting those cuts.
After all, you could explain this about-face by supposing that Republicans have had a change of heart, that they have finally realized just how much good Medicare does. And if you believe that, I’ve got some mortgage-backed securities you might want to buy.
No, what’s truly mind-boggling is this: Even as Republicans denounce modest proposals to rein in Medicare’s rising costs, they are, themselves, seeking to dismantle the whole program. And the process of dismantling would begin with spending cuts of about $650 billion over the next decade. Math is hard, but I do believe that’s more than the roughly $400 billion (not $500 billion) in Medicare savings projected for the Democratic health bills.
What I’m talking about here is the “Roadmap for America’s Future,” the budget plan recently released by Representative Paul Ryan, the ranking Republican member of the House Budget Committee. Other leading Republicans have been bobbing and weaving on the official status of this proposal, but it’s pretty clear that Mr. Ryan’s vision does, in fact, represent what the G.O.P. would try to do if it returns to power.
The broad picture that emerges from the “roadmap” is of an economic agenda that hasn’t changed one iota in response to the economic failures of the Bush years. In particular, Mr. Ryan offers a plan for Social Security privatization that is basically identical to the Bush proposals of five years ago.
But what’s really worth noting, given the way the G.O.P. has campaigned against health care reform, is what Mr. Ryan proposes doing with and to Medicare.
In the Ryan proposal, nobody currently under the age of 55 would be covered by Medicare as it now exists. Instead, people would receive vouchers and be told to buy their own insurance. And even this new, privatized version of Medicare would erode over time because the value of these vouchers would almost surely lag ever further behind the actual cost of health insurance. By the time Americans now in their 20s or 30s reached the age of eligibility, there wouldn’t be much of a Medicare program left.
But what about those who already are covered by Medicare, or will enter the program over the next decade? You’re safe, says the roadmap; you’ll still be eligible for traditional Medicare. Except, that is, for the fact that the plan “strengthens the current program with changes such as income-relating drug benefit premiums to ensure long-term sustainability.”
If this sounds like deliberately confusing gobbledygook, that’s because it is. Fortunately, the Congressional Budget Office, which has done an evaluation of the roadmap, offers a translation: “Some higher-income enrollees would pay higher premiums, and some program payments would be reduced.” In short, there would be Medicare cuts.
And it’s possible to back out the size of those cuts from the budget office analysis, which compares the Ryan proposal with a “baseline” representing current policy. As I’ve already said, the total over the next decade comes to about $650 billion — substantially bigger than the Medicare savings in the Democratic bills.
The bottom line, then, is that the crusade against health reform has relied, crucially, on utter hypocrisy: Republicans who hate Medicare, tried to slash Medicare in the past, and still aim to dismantle the program over time, have been scoring political points by denouncing proposals for modest cost savings — savings that are substantially smaller than the spending cuts buried in their own proposals.
And if Democrats don’t get their act together and push the almost-completed reform across the goal line, this breathtaking act of staggering hypocrisy will succeed.
Far Right Noise Machine Drowns Out Obama's Achievements
Poll Reveals Most Americans Don't Know They Got a Tax Cut
CBS News -- February 12, 2010:
Of all the very information that came out of the recent CBS News/New York Times poll, one question stuck out, that of taxes.
Here's the poll question: "In general, do you think the Obama Administration has increased taxes for most Americans, decreased taxes for most Americans or have they kept taxes the same for most Americans?"
The answer:
• 24 percent of respondents said they INCREASED taxes.
• 53 percent said they kept taxes the same
• And 12 percent said taxes were decreased.
Of people who support the grassroots, "Tea Party" movement, only 2 percent think taxes have been decreased, 46 percent say taxes are the same, and a whopping 44 percent say they believe taxes have gone up.
Those answers must frustrate the president who has highlighted its tax cuts for the middle class in almost every speech.
(CBS, Washingtonpost.com)
In his State of the Union address, President Obama said that as part of their economic recovery, his administration has passed 25 different tax cuts.
"Now, let me repeat: We cut taxes," he said. "We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. We cut taxes for small businesses. We cut taxes for first-time homebuyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college."
In his Super Bowl Sunday interview with Katie Couric, he touted the tax cuts in the stimulus package: "we put $300 billion worth of tax cuts into people's pockets so that there was demand and businesses had customers."
When CBS News' Mark Knoller asked White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs about the poll's findings today, he said simply: "I'd say they called the wrong people."
He went on: "Is it part of the frustration, of course, 95 percent of working people in this country saw their taxes cut last year, but apparently only 12 percent felt it."
Gibbs later said that many Americans may have seen any federal tax cuts offset by an increase in state taxes. "What happens at a federal level and state level, both of those are felt by individuals on the ground," he said.
He went on to say that the tax cuts were structured to achieve the biggest economic impact, namely a smaller dollar amount stretched out over a longer period of time. Gibbs said the White House economic team decided that tax cuts were better for the economy than simply a one-time check of $350 that most people would put into savings rather than spend it. Referencing the poll results, he joked that the selling of the tax cuts could have been done differently -- "obviously, the marketers got kicked out of that meeting."
If so many tax cuts were passed, why have so few Americans actually noticed them?
Possibility 1 – the tax cuts were expansive, but small.
While the majority of the tax cuts, passed last February, affected 95 percent of working families, when they took affect by April of 2009, the monetary value was not too large -- most families saw about $70 more in take home pay every month. Individual workers saw about $13 more a week.
Any tax relief is still relief, but many Americans may not have felt that the tax cuts had much impact.
Possibility 2 – the talk of raising taxes in the future clouded the landscape.
In his 2011 budget, the president has already made it clear that his administration wants to end the Bush–era tax cuts for wealthier families, set to expire next year. So it could be that people see that move as a tax hike already.
Either way, it's another example of White House messaging that isn't reaching through to most Americans.
CBS News -- February 12, 2010:
Of all the very information that came out of the recent CBS News/New York Times poll, one question stuck out, that of taxes.
Here's the poll question: "In general, do you think the Obama Administration has increased taxes for most Americans, decreased taxes for most Americans or have they kept taxes the same for most Americans?"
The answer:
• 24 percent of respondents said they INCREASED taxes.
• 53 percent said they kept taxes the same
• And 12 percent said taxes were decreased.
Of people who support the grassroots, "Tea Party" movement, only 2 percent think taxes have been decreased, 46 percent say taxes are the same, and a whopping 44 percent say they believe taxes have gone up.
Those answers must frustrate the president who has highlighted its tax cuts for the middle class in almost every speech.
(CBS, Washingtonpost.com)
In his State of the Union address, President Obama said that as part of their economic recovery, his administration has passed 25 different tax cuts.
"Now, let me repeat: We cut taxes," he said. "We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. We cut taxes for small businesses. We cut taxes for first-time homebuyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college."
In his Super Bowl Sunday interview with Katie Couric, he touted the tax cuts in the stimulus package: "we put $300 billion worth of tax cuts into people's pockets so that there was demand and businesses had customers."
When CBS News' Mark Knoller asked White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs about the poll's findings today, he said simply: "I'd say they called the wrong people."
He went on: "Is it part of the frustration, of course, 95 percent of working people in this country saw their taxes cut last year, but apparently only 12 percent felt it."
Gibbs later said that many Americans may have seen any federal tax cuts offset by an increase in state taxes. "What happens at a federal level and state level, both of those are felt by individuals on the ground," he said.
He went on to say that the tax cuts were structured to achieve the biggest economic impact, namely a smaller dollar amount stretched out over a longer period of time. Gibbs said the White House economic team decided that tax cuts were better for the economy than simply a one-time check of $350 that most people would put into savings rather than spend it. Referencing the poll results, he joked that the selling of the tax cuts could have been done differently -- "obviously, the marketers got kicked out of that meeting."
If so many tax cuts were passed, why have so few Americans actually noticed them?
Possibility 1 – the tax cuts were expansive, but small.
While the majority of the tax cuts, passed last February, affected 95 percent of working families, when they took affect by April of 2009, the monetary value was not too large -- most families saw about $70 more in take home pay every month. Individual workers saw about $13 more a week.
Any tax relief is still relief, but many Americans may not have felt that the tax cuts had much impact.
Possibility 2 – the talk of raising taxes in the future clouded the landscape.
In his 2011 budget, the president has already made it clear that his administration wants to end the Bush–era tax cuts for wealthier families, set to expire next year. So it could be that people see that move as a tax hike already.
Either way, it's another example of White House messaging that isn't reaching through to most Americans.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Sarah Palin and The "Hopeless, Changeless" Party
Sarah Palin wants to know: "How's that hopey, changey thing workin' out for you?"
Well, Sarah -- a heck of a lot better than anything your "Hopeless, Changeless" Party has to offer.
Do you want a jobs creation bill? No.
Do you want health care reform? No.
Do you want regulation of the financial industry? No.
The Party of Nope has nothing to offer but Nope.
Unless you are looking for a new Depression and a total destruction of the US economy. That's the one thing the Party of Nope is great at providing. They have lots of experience in the field. They've Done It Before and They Can Do It Again.
Well, Sarah -- a heck of a lot better than anything your "Hopeless, Changeless" Party has to offer.
Do you want a jobs creation bill? No.
Do you want health care reform? No.
Do you want regulation of the financial industry? No.
The Party of Nope has nothing to offer but Nope.
Unless you are looking for a new Depression and a total destruction of the US economy. That's the one thing the Party of Nope is great at providing. They have lots of experience in the field. They've Done It Before and They Can Do It Again.
Why Dumbo Loves Sarah Palin
From Politico -- February 12, 2010:
"According to the Washington Post/ABC survey, Palin is viewed favorably by 37 percent of Americans while 55 percent view her unfavorably. That’s what pollsters call being “upside down” and, if she were an incumbent, would usually spell defeat.
Further, only a quarter of those polled said Palin was qualified to be president — and 71 percent said she was not.
What’s more, 52 percent, of self-identified Republicans — more than half — said she wasn’t qualified to be president."
Well, as long as Sarah keeps making her millions from her speaking fees, books, and insane sound bites, what does she care?
As long as Dumbo keeps swallowing Sarah's peanuts, Palin is a happy trooper.
"According to the Washington Post/ABC survey, Palin is viewed favorably by 37 percent of Americans while 55 percent view her unfavorably. That’s what pollsters call being “upside down” and, if she were an incumbent, would usually spell defeat.
Further, only a quarter of those polled said Palin was qualified to be president — and 71 percent said she was not.
What’s more, 52 percent, of self-identified Republicans — more than half — said she wasn’t qualified to be president."
Well, as long as Sarah keeps making her millions from her speaking fees, books, and insane sound bites, what does she care?
As long as Dumbo keeps swallowing Sarah's peanuts, Palin is a happy trooper.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Some Very Wise and Perceptive Words By Anon 2
Anon 2 says:
"The Repugnicans screamed loud enough for everyone in the world to hear that they want Obama to fail.
By even wanting that and putting actions to their asshole words, the dumbbells are having the wish to self destruct = America to fail.
There ain't not even 1 civilized bone in every cons body. Racist bunch of whores who sell out America and make it the laughing stock of the world.
Nuff said."
That sums things up in a nutshell, Anon 2. Very well put.
"The Repugnicans screamed loud enough for everyone in the world to hear that they want Obama to fail.
By even wanting that and putting actions to their asshole words, the dumbbells are having the wish to self destruct = America to fail.
There ain't not even 1 civilized bone in every cons body. Racist bunch of whores who sell out America and make it the laughing stock of the world.
Nuff said."
That sums things up in a nutshell, Anon 2. Very well put.
Obama's Poll Numbers May Have Slipped, but the Republican Party's Poll Numbers Are In the Garbage Can
Poll Finds Edge for Obama Over G.O.P. Among the Public
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and MEGAN THEE-BRENAN
The New York Times -- February 11, 2010:
WASHINGTON — At a time of deepening political disaffection and intensified distress about the economy, President Obama enjoys an edge over Republicans in the battle for public support, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
While the president is showing signs of vulnerability on his handling of the economy — a majority of respondents say he has yet to offer a clear plan for creating jobs — Americans blame former President George W. Bush, Wall Street and Congress much more than they do Mr. Obama for the nation’s economic problems and the budget deficit, the poll found.
They credit Mr. Obama more than Republicans with making an effort at bipartisanship, and they back the White House’s policies on a variety of disputed issues, including allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military and repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.
The poll suggests that both parties face a toxic environment as they prepare for the elections in November. Public disapproval of Congress is at a historic high, and huge numbers of Americans think Congress is beholden to special interests. Fewer than 1 in 10 Americans say members of Congress deserve re-election.
As the party in power, Democrats face a particular risk from any wave of voter discontent; unfavorable views of the Democratic Party are as high as they have been since the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994, though Republicans continue to register an even worse showing. The percentage of Americans who approve of Mr. Obama’s job performance, 46 percent, is as low as it has been since he took office.
Still, the poll suggests that Mr. Obama and his party have an opportunity to deflect the anger and anxiety if they can frame the election not as a referendum on the president and his party, but as a choice between them and a Republican approach that yielded results under Mr. Bush that much of the nation still blames for the country’s woes. That is what the White House has been trying to do since the beginning of the year.
For all the erosion in support for Mr. Obama, Americans say he better understands their needs and problems and has made more of an effort to be bipartisan than Congressional Republicans, the poll found.
“It feels like an attempt to sabotage the majority and to regain control of power rather than working on a compromise,” John Smith, a Republican from Greenville, S.C., said of his party after participating in the poll.
Americans say that Mr. Obama is far less likely to favor special interests over the American people than Congress. Mr. Obama and his party continue to have an edge over Republicans on which party would do better in dealing with health care and job creation. But Republicans have gained an edge on handling of the economy.
The public has lost much of its enthusiasm for a health care overhaul, and how Mr. Obama has managed it. He gets low marks for his handling of the deficit and the economy. And the fact that 56 percent of respondents of think that Mr. Obama does not have a plan to create jobs is a distressing bit of news for a White House that in recent weeks had made an intensive effort to present Mr. Obama as concerned with the economy.
But the public backs other elements of Mr. Obama’s agenda. By a two-to-one ratio, Americans support an end to tax cuts for the wealthy, and Americans favor allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military.
The Tea Party movement, which has grown out of the strain of discontent, so far commands relatively little public support; 18 percent of respondents said they considered themselves supporters of the movement, while 55 percent said they had heard little or nothing about it.
The level of dissatisfaction with both political parties — and the fact that 56 percent of Americans in the poll want a smaller government — suggests that the Tea Party movement has an opportunity to draw more support. The poll found that 51 percent of Americans now view the Democratic Party unfavorably, nearly matching the highest in the history of the Times/CBS News poll. At the same time, 57 percent have an unfavorable view of the Republican Party.
The nationwide telephone poll of 1,084 adults was taken from Feb. 5 through 10 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points for all adults.
The poll found substantial pessimism: 62 percent of respondents said the country was heading in the wrong direction. And 70 percent of those polled said they thought it was going to take two years or longer for the effects of the recession that technically ended last year to fade away.
Three-quarters of the public disapproves of Congress, matching the highest level measured by the New York Times/CBS News Poll since it began asking the question in 1977. Four out of five voters thought Congress was more interested in serving special interests than voters.
“I think Congress and the Senate need to be completely revamped,” said Michael Wish, 30, a Democrat from Medina, Ohio. He added, “The old way of doing things is no longer working.”
Americans appear hungry for an end to partisan infighting in Washington, so much so that half of respondents said the Senate should change the filibuster rules that Republicans have used to block Mr. Obama’s agenda. Almost 60 percent said both Mr. Obama and Congressional Republicans should compromise in the interest of consensus.
But Mr. Obama is seen as making more of an effort to do that: 62 percent said Mr. Obama was trying to work with Congressional Republicans, while the same percentage said that Republicans were not trying to work with Mr. Obama.
“Obama is certainly trying,” said Bonnie Ewasiuk, 60, of Woodbridge, Va. “I’m a Republican so I don’t like to go against the party, but Obama has reached out and had meetings and I don’t think the Republicans are going to be responsive. All you see from them is negativity.”
More than half of respondents said that Mr. Obama had not spent enough time trying to fix the economy, and nearly half said he had spent too much time trying to pass a health care bill.
He scored better on other measures, particularly in comparison with Republicans; 60 percent said the president understood their problems, compared with 42 percent who said the same thing about Congressional Democrats and 35 percent for Congressional Republicans.
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and MEGAN THEE-BRENAN
The New York Times -- February 11, 2010:
WASHINGTON — At a time of deepening political disaffection and intensified distress about the economy, President Obama enjoys an edge over Republicans in the battle for public support, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
While the president is showing signs of vulnerability on his handling of the economy — a majority of respondents say he has yet to offer a clear plan for creating jobs — Americans blame former President George W. Bush, Wall Street and Congress much more than they do Mr. Obama for the nation’s economic problems and the budget deficit, the poll found.
They credit Mr. Obama more than Republicans with making an effort at bipartisanship, and they back the White House’s policies on a variety of disputed issues, including allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military and repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.
The poll suggests that both parties face a toxic environment as they prepare for the elections in November. Public disapproval of Congress is at a historic high, and huge numbers of Americans think Congress is beholden to special interests. Fewer than 1 in 10 Americans say members of Congress deserve re-election.
As the party in power, Democrats face a particular risk from any wave of voter discontent; unfavorable views of the Democratic Party are as high as they have been since the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994, though Republicans continue to register an even worse showing. The percentage of Americans who approve of Mr. Obama’s job performance, 46 percent, is as low as it has been since he took office.
Still, the poll suggests that Mr. Obama and his party have an opportunity to deflect the anger and anxiety if they can frame the election not as a referendum on the president and his party, but as a choice between them and a Republican approach that yielded results under Mr. Bush that much of the nation still blames for the country’s woes. That is what the White House has been trying to do since the beginning of the year.
For all the erosion in support for Mr. Obama, Americans say he better understands their needs and problems and has made more of an effort to be bipartisan than Congressional Republicans, the poll found.
“It feels like an attempt to sabotage the majority and to regain control of power rather than working on a compromise,” John Smith, a Republican from Greenville, S.C., said of his party after participating in the poll.
Americans say that Mr. Obama is far less likely to favor special interests over the American people than Congress. Mr. Obama and his party continue to have an edge over Republicans on which party would do better in dealing with health care and job creation. But Republicans have gained an edge on handling of the economy.
The public has lost much of its enthusiasm for a health care overhaul, and how Mr. Obama has managed it. He gets low marks for his handling of the deficit and the economy. And the fact that 56 percent of respondents of think that Mr. Obama does not have a plan to create jobs is a distressing bit of news for a White House that in recent weeks had made an intensive effort to present Mr. Obama as concerned with the economy.
But the public backs other elements of Mr. Obama’s agenda. By a two-to-one ratio, Americans support an end to tax cuts for the wealthy, and Americans favor allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military.
The Tea Party movement, which has grown out of the strain of discontent, so far commands relatively little public support; 18 percent of respondents said they considered themselves supporters of the movement, while 55 percent said they had heard little or nothing about it.
The level of dissatisfaction with both political parties — and the fact that 56 percent of Americans in the poll want a smaller government — suggests that the Tea Party movement has an opportunity to draw more support. The poll found that 51 percent of Americans now view the Democratic Party unfavorably, nearly matching the highest in the history of the Times/CBS News poll. At the same time, 57 percent have an unfavorable view of the Republican Party.
The nationwide telephone poll of 1,084 adults was taken from Feb. 5 through 10 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points for all adults.
The poll found substantial pessimism: 62 percent of respondents said the country was heading in the wrong direction. And 70 percent of those polled said they thought it was going to take two years or longer for the effects of the recession that technically ended last year to fade away.
Three-quarters of the public disapproves of Congress, matching the highest level measured by the New York Times/CBS News Poll since it began asking the question in 1977. Four out of five voters thought Congress was more interested in serving special interests than voters.
“I think Congress and the Senate need to be completely revamped,” said Michael Wish, 30, a Democrat from Medina, Ohio. He added, “The old way of doing things is no longer working.”
Americans appear hungry for an end to partisan infighting in Washington, so much so that half of respondents said the Senate should change the filibuster rules that Republicans have used to block Mr. Obama’s agenda. Almost 60 percent said both Mr. Obama and Congressional Republicans should compromise in the interest of consensus.
But Mr. Obama is seen as making more of an effort to do that: 62 percent said Mr. Obama was trying to work with Congressional Republicans, while the same percentage said that Republicans were not trying to work with Mr. Obama.
“Obama is certainly trying,” said Bonnie Ewasiuk, 60, of Woodbridge, Va. “I’m a Republican so I don’t like to go against the party, but Obama has reached out and had meetings and I don’t think the Republicans are going to be responsive. All you see from them is negativity.”
More than half of respondents said that Mr. Obama had not spent enough time trying to fix the economy, and nearly half said he had spent too much time trying to pass a health care bill.
He scored better on other measures, particularly in comparison with Republicans; 60 percent said the president understood their problems, compared with 42 percent who said the same thing about Congressional Democrats and 35 percent for Congressional Republicans.
Republicans and Fox News Play Politics and Jeopardize Our National Security
From Media Matters - February 11, 2010:
Fox News launches all-out war against John Brennan
In the wake of White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan's criticism of Republicans for politicizing the Obama administration's response to the attempted Christmas Day bombing of a Northwest Airlines flight, Fox News guests and hosts have responded by attacking Brennan and the administration over its handling of the bombing plot. Fox has gone so far as to ask whether Brennan should resign, and has repeatedly hosted Republican Sen. Kit Bond to say that he should.
Brennan: "I'm tiring of politicians using national security issues such as terrorism as a political football"
Brennan criticizes politicians who are using national security for "political or partisan purposes." On the February 7 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, Brennan criticized "politicians using national security issues such as terrorism as a political football," saying, "They are going out there, they're, they're unknowing of the facts, and they're making charges and allegations that are not anchored in reality." He further stated, "I'm just very concerned on the behalf of the counterterrorism professionals throughout our government that politicians continue to make this a political football and are using it for whatever political or partisan purposes, whether they be Democrats or Republicans."
Brennan repeats criticism in USA Today op-ed. In a February 9 USA Today op-ed, Brennan wrote: "Politics should never get in the way of national security. But too many in Washington are now misrepresenting the facts to score political points, instead of coming together to keep us safe." He further stated, "Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda."
Fox guests and hosts respond by attacking Brennan and the administration, asking if Brennan should resign
Perino advanced several dubious claims on Fox & Friends, including that Abdulmutallab "bought a one-way ticket" and that "there wasn't a system in place" for the military to hold Richard Reid. On the February 8 edition of Fox & Friends, Perino criticized the Obama administration for missing "all these red flags," claiming that Northwest airlines bombing suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab "bought a one-way ticket" to the United States. However, Obama administration officials have stated that Abdulmutallab flew to Detroit on a round-trip ticket. Further, Perino attempted to rebut the Obama administration's comparison of its use of civilian trials for alleged terrorists with the Bush administration's similar treatment of shoe bomber Richard Reid by falsely suggesting that "there wasn't a system in place" for Bush to order Reid to be held by the military. In fact, such a system was in place by the time Reid pleaded guilty, as many suspects were placed in military detention before that date.
Happening Now hosts Hoekstra, who attacks Brennan, administration. On the February 8 edition of Happening Now, Jon Scott hosted Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) to discuss Brennan's remarks. Hoekstra stated during the segment that Brennan "is trying to change the subject to other things because of this administration's miserable record on fighting homegrown terrorism and fighting radical jihadists.
Fox & Friends hosted parade of guests with questionable credibility to attack Brennan, administration. In the two days after Brennan's remarks on Meet the Press, Fox & Friends repeatedly hosted only conservatives and opponents of the Obama administration to discuss Brennan's remarks and the administration's response to the plot. Moreover, Fox & Friends hosted these guests despite the fact that most of them have a history of making false or outrageous statements about American foreign policy or terrorism, undermining their credibility to discuss those topics.
Hannity: "Brennan sure does need a dose of common sense." On the February 9 edition of his Fox News show, Hannity called Brennan's USA Today comments "outrageous" and said that "Brennan sure does need a dose of common sense." He further claimed that Brennan wrote the op-ed because the "Obama administration is sick and tired of your criticism over the way they've handled the detention of the Christmas Day bomber" and that Brennan was "dispatched" by the Obama administration to "silence the crowds."
Giuliani claims that Brennan has "done a pretty good job" of "mishandl[ing] national security." On the February 9 edition of Hannity, Rudy Giuliani claimed that Brennan has "done a pretty good job" of "mishandl[ing] national security."
Greta Van Susteren hosts Bond to discuss his call for Brennan to resign. On the February 10 edition of On the Record, Bond said he had "a couple of concerns about" Brennan. He claimed Brennan has "come out as a political spokesman for the White House" and claimed that Brennan did not brief him about Abdulmutallab being Mirandized and accused Brennan of not "setting up an interrogation process last year when the president back in January said the CIA can no longer interrogate."
Hannity hosts McCain to attack Brennan. On the February 10 edition of Hannity, Sean Hannity hosted Sen. John McCain, who said, "I can tell you Mr. Brennan, in my view, has lost all ability to affect events or to be relevant when he accuses those of us who are critical of the handling of the Christmas bomber of helping Al Qaeda. That's beyond an outrage, and it's an insult." He claimed that Brennan was "accus[ing] us of helping Al Qaeda" and called it a "new low."
O'Reilly: "How can you stick up for Brennan? ... He doesn't have a point." On the February 10 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly called Brennan "a patriot and a serious man," but criticized Brennan for the decision to try Abdulmutallab in civilian court. O'Reilly stated that "it doesn't make any sense" to use civilian courts instead of "[m]ilitary commissions, when the law of war is broken," and said, "I'm yelling at you, Mr. Brennan, OK. Get your butt in here and defend this, because it's hurting the whole country." He later asked guest Marc Lamont Hill, "How can you stick up for Brennan and say he has got a strong point? He doesn't have a point."
Jarrett claims Brennan "keeps making false accusations, apparently," asks Hoekstra, "Shouldn't this guy ... resign?" On the February 10 edition ofAmerica's Newsroom, co-host Gregg Jarrett claimed that Brennan "keeps making false accusations, apparently," and asked Hoekstra, "Shouldn't this guy, who advises the president, resign?" Hoekstra later replied that Brennan is "poisoning the well" and that Obama "probably should fire" Brennan.
Your World hosts Dana Perino to attack Brennan. On the February 10 edition of Fox News' Your World, guest host Eric Bolling claimed that "calls [are] growing today for White House counterterror adviser John Brennan to step down," and introduced former Bush press secretary Dana Perino by saying, "this is getting pretty ugly." Perino called Brennan's claims "egregious," the "consequences" of which are "dire." She called Brennan's claim that Abdulmutallab was now cooperating "interesting" and asked "what happened during the four weeks," in which she presumed he was not.
Fox & Friends quotes Bond to slam Brennan. On the February 10 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, all three hosts criticized Brennan. Steve Doocy responded to Brennan's op-ed by asking, "[W]ait a minute, are you saying that if you are critical of the administration, you're helping the terrorists? It sure sounds like it." Gretchen Carlson called Brennan's assertion that Republicans were aware of Abdulmutallab being Mirandized "still up for debate" and reportedBond's call for Brennan to resign, later claiming that "he's trying to save his job at this point" and accusing him of trying to change the "political fight" to whether the Republicans knew about his status. Co-host Brian Kilmeade asked, "Did anyone think rationally that you get the most out of any would-be terrorist in 50 minutes of questioning?" Kilmeade said of Brennan's reference to Richard Reid, "If you're in a hole, you should stop digging."
John Bolton calls Brennan "delusional." On the February 10 edition of Fox News' Red Eye, host Greg Gutfeld asked former United Nations ambassador John Bolton, "Brennan maintains that the failed Christmas day attacker would have given less information under military custody. Do you agree or disagree with that?" Bolton replied, "He's delusional. He is just delusional. Look, the administration said first they got everything they were gonna in 50 minutes of interrogation. Now, five weeks later, they're happy that he's talking again. You can't have it both ways. You just can't."
America's Newsroom hosts Bond to attack Brennan. On the February 11 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, Jarrett hosted Bond to discuss Brennan. Jarrett asked Bond, "[W]asn't it Brennan that first politicized this when he blamed you Republicans for, quote, politically motivated fearmongering and aiding Al Qaeda?" Bond said that Brennan had not reacted appropriately when President Obama "[took] away the interrogation responsibility from the CIA." When Bond brought up Brennan's claim that he and other Republican lawmakers had been briefed by Brennan, Jarrett asked, "[A]re you telling me he was lying?" Jarrett also asked Bond, "Will you back down, or do you still believe that John Brennan needs to go?" -- but Bond shifted to attacking Obama's terrorism strategy.
Fox Nation: "Should Brennan Be Fired?" On February 11, the Fox Nation featured the headline, "Should Brennan Be Fired?"
Fox News launches all-out war against John Brennan
In the wake of White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan's criticism of Republicans for politicizing the Obama administration's response to the attempted Christmas Day bombing of a Northwest Airlines flight, Fox News guests and hosts have responded by attacking Brennan and the administration over its handling of the bombing plot. Fox has gone so far as to ask whether Brennan should resign, and has repeatedly hosted Republican Sen. Kit Bond to say that he should.
Brennan: "I'm tiring of politicians using national security issues such as terrorism as a political football"
Brennan criticizes politicians who are using national security for "political or partisan purposes." On the February 7 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, Brennan criticized "politicians using national security issues such as terrorism as a political football," saying, "They are going out there, they're, they're unknowing of the facts, and they're making charges and allegations that are not anchored in reality." He further stated, "I'm just very concerned on the behalf of the counterterrorism professionals throughout our government that politicians continue to make this a political football and are using it for whatever political or partisan purposes, whether they be Democrats or Republicans."
Brennan repeats criticism in USA Today op-ed. In a February 9 USA Today op-ed, Brennan wrote: "Politics should never get in the way of national security. But too many in Washington are now misrepresenting the facts to score political points, instead of coming together to keep us safe." He further stated, "Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda."
Fox guests and hosts respond by attacking Brennan and the administration, asking if Brennan should resign
Perino advanced several dubious claims on Fox & Friends, including that Abdulmutallab "bought a one-way ticket" and that "there wasn't a system in place" for the military to hold Richard Reid. On the February 8 edition of Fox & Friends, Perino criticized the Obama administration for missing "all these red flags," claiming that Northwest airlines bombing suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab "bought a one-way ticket" to the United States. However, Obama administration officials have stated that Abdulmutallab flew to Detroit on a round-trip ticket. Further, Perino attempted to rebut the Obama administration's comparison of its use of civilian trials for alleged terrorists with the Bush administration's similar treatment of shoe bomber Richard Reid by falsely suggesting that "there wasn't a system in place" for Bush to order Reid to be held by the military. In fact, such a system was in place by the time Reid pleaded guilty, as many suspects were placed in military detention before that date.
Happening Now hosts Hoekstra, who attacks Brennan, administration. On the February 8 edition of Happening Now, Jon Scott hosted Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) to discuss Brennan's remarks. Hoekstra stated during the segment that Brennan "is trying to change the subject to other things because of this administration's miserable record on fighting homegrown terrorism and fighting radical jihadists.
Fox & Friends hosted parade of guests with questionable credibility to attack Brennan, administration. In the two days after Brennan's remarks on Meet the Press, Fox & Friends repeatedly hosted only conservatives and opponents of the Obama administration to discuss Brennan's remarks and the administration's response to the plot. Moreover, Fox & Friends hosted these guests despite the fact that most of them have a history of making false or outrageous statements about American foreign policy or terrorism, undermining their credibility to discuss those topics.
Hannity: "Brennan sure does need a dose of common sense." On the February 9 edition of his Fox News show, Hannity called Brennan's USA Today comments "outrageous" and said that "Brennan sure does need a dose of common sense." He further claimed that Brennan wrote the op-ed because the "Obama administration is sick and tired of your criticism over the way they've handled the detention of the Christmas Day bomber" and that Brennan was "dispatched" by the Obama administration to "silence the crowds."
Giuliani claims that Brennan has "done a pretty good job" of "mishandl[ing] national security." On the February 9 edition of Hannity, Rudy Giuliani claimed that Brennan has "done a pretty good job" of "mishandl[ing] national security."
Greta Van Susteren hosts Bond to discuss his call for Brennan to resign. On the February 10 edition of On the Record, Bond said he had "a couple of concerns about" Brennan. He claimed Brennan has "come out as a political spokesman for the White House" and claimed that Brennan did not brief him about Abdulmutallab being Mirandized and accused Brennan of not "setting up an interrogation process last year when the president back in January said the CIA can no longer interrogate."
Hannity hosts McCain to attack Brennan. On the February 10 edition of Hannity, Sean Hannity hosted Sen. John McCain, who said, "I can tell you Mr. Brennan, in my view, has lost all ability to affect events or to be relevant when he accuses those of us who are critical of the handling of the Christmas bomber of helping Al Qaeda. That's beyond an outrage, and it's an insult." He claimed that Brennan was "accus[ing] us of helping Al Qaeda" and called it a "new low."
O'Reilly: "How can you stick up for Brennan? ... He doesn't have a point." On the February 10 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly called Brennan "a patriot and a serious man," but criticized Brennan for the decision to try Abdulmutallab in civilian court. O'Reilly stated that "it doesn't make any sense" to use civilian courts instead of "[m]ilitary commissions, when the law of war is broken," and said, "I'm yelling at you, Mr. Brennan, OK. Get your butt in here and defend this, because it's hurting the whole country." He later asked guest Marc Lamont Hill, "How can you stick up for Brennan and say he has got a strong point? He doesn't have a point."
Jarrett claims Brennan "keeps making false accusations, apparently," asks Hoekstra, "Shouldn't this guy ... resign?" On the February 10 edition ofAmerica's Newsroom, co-host Gregg Jarrett claimed that Brennan "keeps making false accusations, apparently," and asked Hoekstra, "Shouldn't this guy, who advises the president, resign?" Hoekstra later replied that Brennan is "poisoning the well" and that Obama "probably should fire" Brennan.
Your World hosts Dana Perino to attack Brennan. On the February 10 edition of Fox News' Your World, guest host Eric Bolling claimed that "calls [are] growing today for White House counterterror adviser John Brennan to step down," and introduced former Bush press secretary Dana Perino by saying, "this is getting pretty ugly." Perino called Brennan's claims "egregious," the "consequences" of which are "dire." She called Brennan's claim that Abdulmutallab was now cooperating "interesting" and asked "what happened during the four weeks," in which she presumed he was not.
Fox & Friends quotes Bond to slam Brennan. On the February 10 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, all three hosts criticized Brennan. Steve Doocy responded to Brennan's op-ed by asking, "[W]ait a minute, are you saying that if you are critical of the administration, you're helping the terrorists? It sure sounds like it." Gretchen Carlson called Brennan's assertion that Republicans were aware of Abdulmutallab being Mirandized "still up for debate" and reportedBond's call for Brennan to resign, later claiming that "he's trying to save his job at this point" and accusing him of trying to change the "political fight" to whether the Republicans knew about his status. Co-host Brian Kilmeade asked, "Did anyone think rationally that you get the most out of any would-be terrorist in 50 minutes of questioning?" Kilmeade said of Brennan's reference to Richard Reid, "If you're in a hole, you should stop digging."
John Bolton calls Brennan "delusional." On the February 10 edition of Fox News' Red Eye, host Greg Gutfeld asked former United Nations ambassador John Bolton, "Brennan maintains that the failed Christmas day attacker would have given less information under military custody. Do you agree or disagree with that?" Bolton replied, "He's delusional. He is just delusional. Look, the administration said first they got everything they were gonna in 50 minutes of interrogation. Now, five weeks later, they're happy that he's talking again. You can't have it both ways. You just can't."
America's Newsroom hosts Bond to attack Brennan. On the February 11 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, Jarrett hosted Bond to discuss Brennan. Jarrett asked Bond, "[W]asn't it Brennan that first politicized this when he blamed you Republicans for, quote, politically motivated fearmongering and aiding Al Qaeda?" Bond said that Brennan had not reacted appropriately when President Obama "[took] away the interrogation responsibility from the CIA." When Bond brought up Brennan's claim that he and other Republican lawmakers had been briefed by Brennan, Jarrett asked, "[A]re you telling me he was lying?" Jarrett also asked Bond, "Will you back down, or do you still believe that John Brennan needs to go?" -- but Bond shifted to attacking Obama's terrorism strategy.
Fox Nation: "Should Brennan Be Fired?" On February 11, the Fox Nation featured the headline, "Should Brennan Be Fired?"
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Republicans are Destroying America and the Democrats are Not Screaming About It
From: The Huffington Post
By Bob Cesca -- February 10, 2010
Time for the Democrats to Get Loud and Fearless
Here's a major reason why the Republicans are still a viable party: they don't mind getting loud. They're willing to flagrantly lie out loud, while also making a huge production out of insignificant and contradictory nonsense that heretofore was never even considered to be a political trespass -- shamelessly and unapologetically amplifying it all to a level of noise that forces the press and voters alike to pay attention.
The Democrats could learn a thing or two about this. More presently.
For all of their faults, the Republicans are absolutely using the whole political animal, so to speak. Like an ancient tribe of hunter-gatherers, they're somehow able to butcher every carcass and turn all of the lies, gaffes and misstatements into something useful. Something that will command attention. Put another way, the Republican strategy seems to be: there's no such thing as bad press, so get loud.
Over the weekend, Sarah Palin appeared in Nashville at the Tea Party convention and while criticizing the president for using a teleprompter -- a device that all politicians, presidents and TV personalities have used since the technology was first invented -- she had the words "tax cuts" scrawled on her hand (or else there was a chance she might forget).
A Republican who might forget to say "tax cuts" is like a preacher who might forget to say "Jesus Christ." But there she was. The leader of the Republican Party -- so ill-prepared, so incapable of even the most basic political skills that she had to write a secret crib sheet on her hand to help her remember to say "tax cuts." Say nothing of the fact that Miss Drill-Baby-Drill had to write "energy" on her hand also.
In her defense, I understand Lincoln had to write "slavery" and "Civil War" on his hand so he wouldn't forget. So there's that.
And yet the Republicans don't mind getting loud about it. She's just like regular folks, they say. She's just like you, they say. This makes her qualified to be president, they say. (The Republicans are even loud about repeating colossal mistakes. Even after George W. Bush nearly destroyed the Republican brand, they're doubling down on the stupid by elevating Sarah Palin. Just remarkable.)
Elsewhere, Rep. Eric Cantor released a statement about the president's invitation to the Republicans to attend a televised health care summit later this month. The statement lead off with the words "government takeover." So right there, when greeted with an outreached hand, Cantor insulted the reform bill by referencing Frank Luntz's completely exaggerated "government takeover" line.
John Boehner, meanwhile, held a press conference in which he discussed the president's bipartisan outreach. And at one point Boehner used the epithet "Democrat majority." Out loud and on television, Boehner used a pejorative term for the Democratic Party designed to emphasize the "rat" syllable. I'm actually shocked he didn't accidentally refer to the president as "Osama."
And Tuesday night, Newt Gingrich flat out lied to Jon Stewart about the nationality of the Shoe Bomber. When Stewart noted that Richard Reid was read his Miranda Rights, Gingrich quickly responded by saying that Reid was, and is, an American citizen. It was a kneejerked lie. Reid is British. Painted into a corner by reality, Gingrich just made shit up (not unlike his awesome "WHOOPS! What If The South Won the Civil War?" book). Fox News Channel does this all the time, by the way. They're so cynical about their audience that they'll go on the air with demonstrably false information, knowing that no one eating their bullshit will bother to look it up. Then, if they're called out by an independent fact-checker, they'll issue a correction days later. Maybe.
Here's where it gets crazy. The Republicans filibustered the jobs bill this week. They filibustered it. Do I need to spell out how wrong that is?
Now, I've been reluctant to rip into the Democrats, mainly because, despite myths to the contrary, Congress and the White House have been able to accomplish some pretty big goals in just a year. Positive goals. Accomplishments that will help real people.
The only problem is that they're not loud enough about these things. They're not loud enough about the Republican obstructionism and treachery. Consequently, other players are writing the script and the Obama administration, along with congressional Democrats, are being mischaracterized. By not fighting back against these mischaracterizations with the full force of their political majorities, they look weak.
Looking at the list of Democratic achievements along with the list of Republican lies and blunders, there's obviously plenty of ammunition. But most of it is being allowed to rot on the vine -- at least so far, even though November is growing larger in the window.
For example, that jobs bill filibuster. Those of us keeping up the congressional activity know about it, but how many rank and file voters know that the Republicans tried to block a bill that would create jobs in the aftermath of a deep recession? I have to ask: if the Republicans filibuster a jobs bill, and no one makes a big stink about it, does it make a sound?
Instead of going on every news show on television and screaming about the Republican filibuster in the same way the Republicans scream about teleprompters, "Democrat Party," and "government takeovers," the Democrats did... what? Not much of anything really.
Smart.
At the same time, the Democrats were contemplating a bit of clever politics this week by tricking the Republicans into voting on Rep. Paul Ryan's so-called "shadow budget," which calls for privatizing Medicare and Social Security. Forcing the Republicans to vote on privatizing Social Security and Medicare is a terrific idea, of course. But let's say the Democrats were to go forward with such a plan. Who's going to know about it? Those of us in the blogosphere. People who watch Morning Joe, maybe. But will your neighbor? Or that co-worker who doesn't know which party to support right now? Probably not, because the Democrats probably wouldn't get loud about it.
And what of the president's big health care summit? If the White House successfully calls the Republican bluff, and they back out, will the White House get loud about it? I don't know. Maybe now that David Plouffe is back in the fold. But so far, they haven't been as effective as they could be with making a big deal out of the Republican nincompoopery and contradictions. (Question Time, to their credit, was a big step in the right direction.)
All told, the Democrats are generally on the right side of these fights, and their opponents are handing them pure political gold. Epic win material. Yet, instead of capitalizing on it, they're remaining silent and acquiescing to a marginalized, obstructionist party.
Crank it up, boys, or get ready for disaster in November.
By Bob Cesca -- February 10, 2010
Time for the Democrats to Get Loud and Fearless
Here's a major reason why the Republicans are still a viable party: they don't mind getting loud. They're willing to flagrantly lie out loud, while also making a huge production out of insignificant and contradictory nonsense that heretofore was never even considered to be a political trespass -- shamelessly and unapologetically amplifying it all to a level of noise that forces the press and voters alike to pay attention.
The Democrats could learn a thing or two about this. More presently.
For all of their faults, the Republicans are absolutely using the whole political animal, so to speak. Like an ancient tribe of hunter-gatherers, they're somehow able to butcher every carcass and turn all of the lies, gaffes and misstatements into something useful. Something that will command attention. Put another way, the Republican strategy seems to be: there's no such thing as bad press, so get loud.
Over the weekend, Sarah Palin appeared in Nashville at the Tea Party convention and while criticizing the president for using a teleprompter -- a device that all politicians, presidents and TV personalities have used since the technology was first invented -- she had the words "tax cuts" scrawled on her hand (or else there was a chance she might forget).
A Republican who might forget to say "tax cuts" is like a preacher who might forget to say "Jesus Christ." But there she was. The leader of the Republican Party -- so ill-prepared, so incapable of even the most basic political skills that she had to write a secret crib sheet on her hand to help her remember to say "tax cuts." Say nothing of the fact that Miss Drill-Baby-Drill had to write "energy" on her hand also.
In her defense, I understand Lincoln had to write "slavery" and "Civil War" on his hand so he wouldn't forget. So there's that.
And yet the Republicans don't mind getting loud about it. She's just like regular folks, they say. She's just like you, they say. This makes her qualified to be president, they say. (The Republicans are even loud about repeating colossal mistakes. Even after George W. Bush nearly destroyed the Republican brand, they're doubling down on the stupid by elevating Sarah Palin. Just remarkable.)
Elsewhere, Rep. Eric Cantor released a statement about the president's invitation to the Republicans to attend a televised health care summit later this month. The statement lead off with the words "government takeover." So right there, when greeted with an outreached hand, Cantor insulted the reform bill by referencing Frank Luntz's completely exaggerated "government takeover" line.
John Boehner, meanwhile, held a press conference in which he discussed the president's bipartisan outreach. And at one point Boehner used the epithet "Democrat majority." Out loud and on television, Boehner used a pejorative term for the Democratic Party designed to emphasize the "rat" syllable. I'm actually shocked he didn't accidentally refer to the president as "Osama."
And Tuesday night, Newt Gingrich flat out lied to Jon Stewart about the nationality of the Shoe Bomber. When Stewart noted that Richard Reid was read his Miranda Rights, Gingrich quickly responded by saying that Reid was, and is, an American citizen. It was a kneejerked lie. Reid is British. Painted into a corner by reality, Gingrich just made shit up (not unlike his awesome "WHOOPS! What If The South Won the Civil War?" book). Fox News Channel does this all the time, by the way. They're so cynical about their audience that they'll go on the air with demonstrably false information, knowing that no one eating their bullshit will bother to look it up. Then, if they're called out by an independent fact-checker, they'll issue a correction days later. Maybe.
Here's where it gets crazy. The Republicans filibustered the jobs bill this week. They filibustered it. Do I need to spell out how wrong that is?
Now, I've been reluctant to rip into the Democrats, mainly because, despite myths to the contrary, Congress and the White House have been able to accomplish some pretty big goals in just a year. Positive goals. Accomplishments that will help real people.
The only problem is that they're not loud enough about these things. They're not loud enough about the Republican obstructionism and treachery. Consequently, other players are writing the script and the Obama administration, along with congressional Democrats, are being mischaracterized. By not fighting back against these mischaracterizations with the full force of their political majorities, they look weak.
Looking at the list of Democratic achievements along with the list of Republican lies and blunders, there's obviously plenty of ammunition. But most of it is being allowed to rot on the vine -- at least so far, even though November is growing larger in the window.
For example, that jobs bill filibuster. Those of us keeping up the congressional activity know about it, but how many rank and file voters know that the Republicans tried to block a bill that would create jobs in the aftermath of a deep recession? I have to ask: if the Republicans filibuster a jobs bill, and no one makes a big stink about it, does it make a sound?
Instead of going on every news show on television and screaming about the Republican filibuster in the same way the Republicans scream about teleprompters, "Democrat Party," and "government takeovers," the Democrats did... what? Not much of anything really.
Smart.
At the same time, the Democrats were contemplating a bit of clever politics this week by tricking the Republicans into voting on Rep. Paul Ryan's so-called "shadow budget," which calls for privatizing Medicare and Social Security. Forcing the Republicans to vote on privatizing Social Security and Medicare is a terrific idea, of course. But let's say the Democrats were to go forward with such a plan. Who's going to know about it? Those of us in the blogosphere. People who watch Morning Joe, maybe. But will your neighbor? Or that co-worker who doesn't know which party to support right now? Probably not, because the Democrats probably wouldn't get loud about it.
And what of the president's big health care summit? If the White House successfully calls the Republican bluff, and they back out, will the White House get loud about it? I don't know. Maybe now that David Plouffe is back in the fold. But so far, they haven't been as effective as they could be with making a big deal out of the Republican nincompoopery and contradictions. (Question Time, to their credit, was a big step in the right direction.)
All told, the Democrats are generally on the right side of these fights, and their opponents are handing them pure political gold. Epic win material. Yet, instead of capitalizing on it, they're remaining silent and acquiescing to a marginalized, obstructionist party.
Crank it up, boys, or get ready for disaster in November.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
