The purpose of our suffering is only more suffering.

I keep getting sucked into stuff at home and at work that's monopolizing my time but don't want to shut this blog down. I'm just going to post less frequently for a while. I assume at some point I'll get back to daily posting or something thereabouts.

In the post before last I mentioned that I thought the ignoring politics approach many of my blogger friends were taking was the sane approach to things. I just can't bring myself to do so. I've been a political junkie since I was was fifteen-years old and started reading the paper. It's as coded into my system as drinking coffee.

So I'm a hamster on the wheel.

It really is frustrating. The democrats, including Obama, suck. Sure- they don't suck anywhere near as bad as the GOP. Obama is a light years better president than the chimp who last sat in the Oval Office. But it's not nearly good enough.

Thirty years of conservative rule including a slavish devotion to the Free Market Fairies have taken their toll on this country. Now is not the time for baby steps walking that crap back. Yet baby steps are all Obama is giving us.

Take the health care debate as an example. I think we need a single payer solution. I would go so far as to say we will have a single payer solution at some point and the only question is how much pain we're going to have to work through between then and now to get to that point as the regressive forces in our society including big insurance companies fight such changes tooth and nail.

Yet single payer isn't on the table in Washington as health care reform is discussed. Instead Obama and the democrats punked themselves once again by making concessions before the debate even began in earnest and beginning with the centrist public option solution.

Because the rules that our elites work under insist we always consider the views of the whargarrbbbll right, regardless of what the voters say about those views we're going to get some sort of health care "reform" that's somewhere between the centrist public option and a regressive plan that actually forces the uninsured to by insurance from the crappy private insurers that are slowly choking the country to death. In short: no reform at all.

How are voters going to treat democrats if they not only fail to actually reform health care but make it worse with a market based approach? My guess is that it will be something along the lines of an electoral roundhouse kick to the nuts. A well deserved one at that.

Incidentally; this is why I don't care much about the Franken fight other than the fact he seems to send the Michelle Malkins of the world into a frothing fury. Even with a supermajority in the senate the democrats will be losers.

Steve Benen sums it up well...

After all, American voters gave Democrats a big majority in the House, a big majority in the Senate, and 365 electoral votes to the Democratic president. Obama has a 60% approval rating, and support for Republicans has plummeted.

It's tempting, then, to remind Democratic policymakers, as they negotiate with the shrinking minority party and back down on key priorities, "You won."

All true, but truth be told what really keeps me banging my head on my desk isn't the idea that we have to consider the ideas of republicans in legislation. Just belonging to a political party doesn't automatically make one wrong on the issues. No, what really sets me off is the the GOP as it's currently constituted is functionally batshiat insane. They bring nothing to the table these days besides their raving lunacy.

Why should the country be forced to entertain their angry, incoherent babbling?

Hey, maybe you haven't been keeping up on current events, but we just got our asses kicked, pal!

One of my favorite lines the last couple of months as the issue of gender has entered the presidential primary is to say we'd have a woman as president right now if congress did their damn jobs. I firmly believe this to be true. If congress was following their own constitutionally mandated role of oversight of the Executive Branch then I have no doubt that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would currently be working in the Oval Office.

The immediate reaction of realists when they consider that statement is to dismiss it outright. Simple math makes the idea that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney could be impeached and removed from office absurd. In the first place- the numbers aren't there for a conviction in the Senate. The whole thing would be an exercise in futility from the start.

It seems to me that this unfortunate reaction to my oft-repeated quip that if congress was doing their job Pelosi would be the president is based on the idea that I am attacking our Democratic leadership in congress in making that statement. In fact - I'm only partly attacking our Democratic leadership. I'm also attacking every other warm body in a suit on capitol hill, Democrats and Republicans, who refuse to accept their constitutionally mandated role in our federal government. Those that put the needs of their party or, more often, their own political careers ahead of the need of their country.

It also seems to me that the assertion of powerlessness of congressional Democrats in the face of a slim majority in the Senate as an excuse (and let's be honest an excuse is exactly what it is) towards inaction is also a tacit admission of the of the real problem facing us. Think about the above calculation on conviction and see if you can determine anything other than our leaders will not push for impeachment because, regardless of evidence, facts or public sentiment, Senate Republicans (and Lieberman) will vote in a block against conviction. Recognition of this reality may be rational, but acceptance of it is as a simple fact of life is beyond absurd.

This collective acquiescence to the true partisans in our government is what drives progressives like myself absolutely nuts. For over thirty years now we've watched as Democrats have continued to meet vicious attacks from Republicans by effectively rolling over and tucking their tail between their legs. We've watched as our constitution was subverted through Iran Contra or abused as it was through the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton. Probably the worst thing we've had to endure is to watch that constitution be simply ignored as this President used a horrible tragedy as an excuse to consolidate power in the Executive not granted to it under our constitutional framework. Again and again our elected representatives in congress refused to acknowledge what they're we're up against.

I would ask the realists to consider this mathematical formulation: 61-39. That is the absolute minimum margin the next Democratic president will have to have in the Senate in order to get anything done. It doesn't matter if it's president Clinton II or Obama. NOTHING of any consequence will make it through the Senate without a Democratic majority of at least 61 Senators. Not health care reform. Not tax reform. Certainly not any progressive Supreme Court Judges. Republican Senators will block it all. They'll do it because they can.

God forbid the Democrats don't lose the House and/ or Senate while a Democratic president is in office, because that day in January that they swear that new congress in will be the day impeachment proceedings begin against that man or woman. They'll do it because they can.

Because they can. Because Democrats don't fight. Because Democrats continue to try and get along with these people or meet them half-way when all they'd rather do to the Democrats in return is put 'em in a bus and drive 'em off a cliff.

I understand the question of what impeachment would accomplish (and it it's really a moot question this late in Bush's term.) My honest answer is that I just don't know.

But I also know what NOT impeaching Bush has gotten us. Not to mention NOT forcing Senators to filibuster or NOT using the congressional powers of Inherent Contempt to really bring the hammer down on John Bolton and Harriet Meiers and a whole list of powers inherent to, but unused by, congressional Democrats which are too numerous to list here. It hasn't led to victory, legislative success or even compromise. It's led to one big GOP middle-finger in our direction.

If we're truly serious about the kind of country we want this to be then we need to bend that finger back until in breaks.

You have a kind of sick desperation in your laugh.

The real danger of the Democratic party refusing to lead-

I was going to write something about the tempest over Ahmadinejad's visit to New York and how the media have bought the administration's push for war hook line and sinker but what would be the point? The Administration can do whatever it wants including a war with Iran because the Democrats will just roll over.

Then I was going to write something about the Treasury Department's report on Social Security which is clearly another attempt by the Boy King to try and kill the program but what would be the point? The Democrats don't have 60 votes in the Senate so clearly Social Security is at the mercy of the Republicans.

In fact it's hard to find anything that I personally think is worth fighting for right now. My squad is the Washington Generals and rooting for them or giving them pointers or expecting them to put points on the board is pointless.

I can't motivate myself to support losers and the things I care about politically are too damn important to watch jackasses go through the motions barely pretending they care.

Screw 'em. I'm going to blog about sports, movies and Star Trek for a while. Sorry CB.

Not all of us who drink are poets. Some of us drink because we're not poets.

Kagro X over at Kos slaps Congressional Democrats around pretty good for not standing up to Bush, but there's a certain sentiment I don't get with regards to how people have sized up the President.

And the reason it's important is that it also gives us a window into one of the other hot issues of the moment: how far will Bush go to stonewall Congressional oversight?

That's an issue in which, once again, most Congressional Democrats assume that the game will be played within the confines of the old rules, and that the president "wouldn't dare" instruct the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia not to prosecute anyone the Congress voted to hold in contempt for failure to comply with its subpoenas, for instance. Or that he "wouldn't dare" pardon (for all intents and purposes) Scooter Libby so far in advance of the end of his term. Or that he "wouldn't dare" to simply "defy" an Act of Congress.

I think that makes it a fair question for those of us who are concerned to ask whether there's a "Plan B" -- not for Iraq, but for Congress, in the event that Bush should "dare" to do any of these things the old rules of politics made us so sure he wouldn't.

One thing often ignored when we consider what makes George W. Bush, well, George W. Bush is that he's not a politician. He's not really much of anything when you stop and think about it. Here's a guy that spent most of his life up until his forties rich and drunk. He could give a rat's ass about politics up to that point. Then - when he did decide to involve himself in politics - it was more of a whim and because he really couldn't do anything else that he decided to run (unsuccessfully) for congress and later to be elected Governor of Texasistan.

Why would anyone expect a guy who clearly hadn't spent a single moment of his life contemplating the constitution, the shared values that make up the United States or the traditions and unwritten rules that are the glue that hold congress together and keep us from killing each other to be concerned with honoring any of those ideas if they stood in the way of something he wanted?

So much of what makes us who we are aren't things that are written down on paper but are things we agree to. That's the embodiement of patriotism. This is the most unpatriotic President we've ever had.

Look! I have one job on this lousy ship, it's *stupid*, but I'm gonna do it! Okay?

In the off chance you haven't seen this already - Olbermann is spot on is right; they were elected to one thing.

They've failed.

I'm the Horned One. The Devil. Let me give you my card.

As consumers of information, as most of my friends who read this blog no doubt are, It's fascinating to me how disparate tidbits of information gel into the larger narrative. Just this morning I'm reading Digby's take on yesterday's Comey testimony before congress and Josh Marshall's continuing coverage of the U.S. Attorney firing scandal and am struck by how very much alike these two scandals are.

First Digby -

How over-the-top must this have been for staunch Republican John Ashcroft to have risen from his ICU bed to argue against it and the entire top echelon of the DOJ were preparing to resign? These are not ordinary times and the law enforcement community has not been particularly squeamish about stretching the Bill of Rights. None of those people are bleeding heart liberals or candidates for the presidency of the ACLU. For them to be this adamant, it must have been something completely beyond the pale.

My suspicion has always been that there was some part of this program --- or an entirely different program --- that included spying on political opponents. Even spying on peace marchers and Greenpeace types wouldn't seem to me to be of such a substantial departure from the agreed upon post 9/11 framework that it would cause such a reaction from the top brass, nor would it be so important to the president that he would send Gonzales and Card into the ICU to get Ashcroft to sign off on it while he was high on drugs.

Then Marshall -

If you look over the broad scattering of documents thus far released on the Attorney Purge, there's at least an argument to be made that it unfolds something like this. Someone gets the bright idea, very early in 2005 to can all of the US Attorneys or a lot of them. But for one reason or another the idea gets rejected or just dies a slow bureaucratic death. However it happens, by the end of 2005 the idea's basically moribund.

But then in early 2006 some problems come up -- a rising wave of Republican corruption scandals and declining Republican political fortunes. And the US Attorney Purge idea gets revived -- but now with a much more specific focus, with an eye toward the 2006 and 2008 elections. Certain US Attorneys become more of a problem with expanding corruption investigations.

If I'm sure of anything with regards to what the founders intended for this country it's this: the power of the federal government should never be engaged in partisan political activities. The modern Republican party as embodied by the Bush administration seems to care less about this truism.

This is just one of the examples why I consider the Republican/ Democratic party are equivalent argument absurd. The Democrat party has a hell of a lot of problems. But nothing they could do could compare to the sheer un-American evil we've seen out of Bush and his crew in congress this past six years.

Because it's not our bloody war.

If this is to be believed than I think Democrats may have a bigger problem than they realize.

Democrats will still have to line up votes to pass the final version, which is known as a conference report, and could lose some support from those House Democrats who might not be satisfied with the more amorphous withdrawal goal rather than a firm date. But the leadership is confident that it can secure the votes necessary, arguing that the party cannot afford to fall short now. Members of the Out of Iraq Caucus have indicated they will not try to derail the final bill.

The Out of Iraq Caucus which I assume is made up of members of the Progressive Caucus seems to have trouble with standing up for themselves here. Perhaps they should look to the much smaller in numbers Blue Dogs to see how concessions are won.

Progressives have compromised enough on this crap. We've gone from completely defunding and ordering the troops withdrawn to suggesting dates for withdrawing to "withdrawal goals." No more compromises. Hell, every day we don't impeach Bush's sorry ass is a compromise of a sort.

Draw a line in the sand here, people.