Our justice must be swift and merciless.

Hey, Harry Reid. Bring this asshat in line as of yesterday or get the hell out of your position and let a real Democrat have your job.

Question: With your departure from the Republican Party, there are no more Jewish Republicans in the Senate. Do you care about that?
Specter: I sure do. There’s still time for the Minnesota courts to do justice and declare Norm Coleman the winner.

The senate republicans have already signaled their willingness to filibuster Franken once Coleman runs out of stalling tactics. Does this make it sound like our newest democrat will be on the right side of that vote?

Last night was last night, and it's all there was, and it's all there is. There isn't going to be anything more between us.

Life is pretty good (though busy.) There are only three things making me bang my head on my desk today: politics, religion and sports. Other than those small things I haven't a care in the world.

With regards to politics the Lieberman vote yesterday by Senate Democrats has me seeing red. There are tons of theories as to the thinking of Reid and company to why they let Lieberman keep his chair. Many are willing to write it off simply to Senate collegiality. Others point to Ted Stevens' loss and the growing probability of hitting the magic 60 senators number (although the idea that Lieberman, not to mention Blue Dog Democratic senators, will vote the right way when is counts is beyond absurd.)

Personally, I subscribe to Jane Hamsher's opinion that the Democratic Senate just gave the base of the party the middle finger. Putting the base in our place after we all worked so tirelessly and donated so much to seeing Democrats increase numbers in the Senate and House and win the White House was the entire point of the Lieberman exercise. We can't let the moonbat rabble thing we're beholding to them or anything. They're sending us the message to not expect ANYTHING out of them even with Obama in the White House.

Yeah, well fuck you too Senator Reid.

While I'm on the subject of messages; many Catholic bishops are sending their flock the same message in light of the election results. 54% of Catholic voters went for Obama and these bishops are not happy.

Chicago Cardinal Francis George, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, is preparing a statement during the bishops' fall meeting that will press Obama on abortion.

The bishops suggested that the final document include the message that "aggressively pro-abortion policies" would be viewed "as an attack on the church."

Between the direct involvement of the church of LDS in the passage of Proposition 8 in California and the growing direct involvement of big churches in endorsing similar measures and candidates around the country I'm starting to feel a little victimized here myself.

We subsidize these churches through their tax-exempt status. I don't have a problem with that and consider it wholly constitutional. But when churches are engaging in the types of political advocacy we've seen lately, they're crossing a church-state line. Essentially they're taking my money and using it for something that, as in the case of Proposition 8, I violently disagree with.

Church leaders- take your tax-exempt status and shove it up your ass.

College football sent president-elect Obama and fans of the sport a message yesterday when the BCS signed a deal to move the broadcast of the bowl games from Fox to ESPN for the years 2011-2014. Besides the fact that this is a giant rasberry aimed at fans who don't subscribe to cable the real news here is this effectively locks in the stupid BCS system until that contract expires six years from now.

The end of the ESPN deal coincides with the date — 2014 — through which the B.C.S. commissioners have agreed to keep their current championship system in place. The commissioners met last April and considered a playoff proposal by Mike Slive, the commissioner of the Southeastern Conference, but voted against it and put off considering any changes until the end of the next television deal.

I can't think of any other sport where fans consistently root for the thing to go FUBAR so we can get rid of it as they do in college football with the BCS.

Dear BCS- message recieved. Now kiss my ass.

I think that's enough outrage for today.

Mr. Magee, don't make me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry.

I assume everybody is up to speed on the Harry Reid/ Joe Lieberman melodrama of last week. It won't come as any surprise that I come down on the side of those that want to have Holy Joe lose his chairmanships, be expeled from the party and then summarily tomatoed to his knees in the public square. But that doesn't even come close to expressing how I really feel.

When I think about the possibility that the slimy traitorous little weasel Lieberman might retain those chairmanships when loyal, true-blue Democrat Hillary Clinton doesn't chair any committees of her own, I'm filled with a Hulkian rage giving me the strength to tear a toaster in two with my bare hands.

Seniority be damned. Give his committees to Hillary. She's more than earned them and she won't be stabbing us in the back.

That's right, karate... made my whole body a weapon.

At the bookstore a minute ago I saw that Harry Reid has a new book out entitled "The Good Fight."

I'm curious as to when that fight is going to start.

Because if Reid's actually summarizing his view of the last few years of his tenure as Majority Leader I think a more apt title might be "Please Don't Hurt Me."

If you were not a bride I would kiss you goodbye.

Kossacks are besides themselves because Harry Reid has apparently promised Joe Lieberman he'll keep his seniority and chairmanship regardless of the results of the election. This is with most political analysts seeing moderate to big pick-ups for dems in the Senate this November. They can't seem to figure out why Reid is doing this or what Lieberman has on the Majority Leader that would keep him from throwing that traitorous little toad over a cliff. The man is actively campaigning for John McCain for God's sakes.

I would say that Reid's action makes perfect sense if you consider what I talked about here. The Democrats will need better than a 61-39 majority to get ANYTHING done in the next congress. Republicans will simply declare they're filibustering every single piece of legislation that comes up. Reid's kissing Lieberman's ass because he's going to need the little pint-sized Napoleon.

Of course Reid could take some of the actions that progressives have been screaming for this last few years, not the least of which is to force Republicans into true filibusters rather than just the declarations of same they're able to get away with now. Drive their obstruction into the open. Of course that would be too confrontational. That would just make the Democrats look mean and go against the comity in the Senate so we just can't have it.

Instead we let ourselves be pushed around by someone who was thrown out of the Democratic party by it's voters and is currently campaigning to ensure that the two Senate Democrats still in the race for the presidency aren't allowed into the White House to secede Bush. Mark my words: Lieberman will be speaking at the Republican convention and thumbing his nose at everything the Democratic party supposedly holds dear.

But at least he'll still have his Chairmanship.

A lot depends on who's in the saddle.

I'm still around.

Besides the usual craziness that surrounds pretty much everybody I know with a family (work, kids to practice, finding a way to get dinner before 8:30, rabid hamsters) I really haven't been able to bring myself to write about politics; even when I have the time.

For most of my life I've been a Democrat but also what I'd term a "wide-eyed" Democrat. I'm a Democrat that's never suffered under the delusion that my party is fully functional nor that inaction of all of it's platforms would somehow be a magical panacea that would cure all of the ills of American society.

What's kept me calling myself a Democrat and occasionally volunteering has been the simple fact that, for all it's dysfunctions, the Democratic party is the single organized body strong enough to stop the great evil that threatens our country: conservative Republicans.

When the Democratic party fails to fulfill even this role then I'm left joining many progressives who've supported Democrats and who made '06 possible asking "what the hell's the point?"

There has been so much outrageous stuff happening this last seven years and all we've had out of the leaders in the Democratic party are excuses. I'm tired of it. If FDR were to come back to life and see what's become of the modern Democratic party he'd get up out of his wheelchair and kick the living crap out of Pelosi and Reid, not to mention weenies like Ben Nelson and Washington's Brian Baird (a sucker for the Bushies if there ever was one.)

Politics is about leadership. The mealy-mouthed, hide-under-their-desk when it counts cowardice that the Democratic party has been exhibiting ain't it. We don't expect our leaders to all be Michael Jordan. We do expect that, at the very least, they'll get off the bench and get into the game.

In the world of advertising, there's no such thing as a lie. There's only expedient exaggeration.

Dear Senator Reid,

Don't jerk us around. We can smell bullshit a mile away. You don't have the same advantage that the Republicans do in that the progressive base that more often than not supports Democrats isn't stupid and isn't going to just fall in line because you go through the motions of doing what's right. You try and fake us out on this fillibuster and we'll walk.

Sincerely,

A pissed-off progressive.

Don't point that finger at me unless you intend to use it.

Harry Reid's comments yesterday that there would remain thousands of troops in Iraq even after a withdrawal should not lead to all the gnashing of the teeth among progressives that it has.

The important thing is we begin pulling out troops as soon as possible. We can begin to cut deployments and rebuild our weakened military after that gets underway.

More importantly I have no doubt that there will come a point after we've withdrawn a majority of our troops when it will become politically impossible for us to keep any force in Iraq for long after. Events on the ground will accelerate and even under the best case scenario for resolution - a stable coalition government in Iraq - we will be asked to leave.

I want our troops out. The sooner the better. Nothing Reid said plays against that desire.

Do you have the slightest idea what a moral and ethical principle is? Do you?

Josh Marshall makes a great observation (as usual) on the hullabaloo surrounding Reid's "incompetent" comment on General Pace.

Thinking back over the blather last week over Sen. Reid's (D-NV) comments about Gen. Pace, it's quite astonishing that the White House could with a straight face attack Reid for questioning Pace's competence only day's after they'd fired him. Think about that. The White House fires Pace as part of its many-month effort to sack everyone from the Rumsfeld era at the Pentagon. And Reid is in hot water for questioning the man's abilities?

This incident was also illustrative of the insane relativist media-driven world we live in these days. In the last few weeks we've had to endure debates about Nancy Pelosi's "earmarks" initiated by the architects of the biggest budget deficits in history who have literally thrown taxpayer's money into a bottomless pit in Iraq, Diane Feinstein's "secret' land dealings begun by some of the very same people who gave us the K-Street project and then Reid's criticism of a General's incompetence started by the people who are, well, incompetent.

In a rational world this idiocy would've been laughed off by reporters and never seen the light of day. You don't go to Paris Hilton for advice on avoiding sustance abuse or Charles Manson for information on how to love your fellow man. The source in and of itself should have been enough to kill these non-stories well before they made it onto our teevees. These are indeed strange times.

If you want to join the People's Front of Judea, you have to really hate the Romans.

I realized yesterday that although my outrage meter on George W. Bush has long sense maxed out, I still have room for plenty of outrage aimed at Democrats in congress. I am simply livid that they caved to Bush on the Iraq supplemental and basically gave him everything he wanted to let him push this disaster onto the lap of the next President.

There's a whole hell of a lot to say about this and how it's a fundamental betrayal of the will of the American people not to mention just plain stupid politics when dealing with a President as unpopular as Bush, but I just want to address one little canard that crawled out of the mud yesterday - Nicholas Beaudrot's much talked about contention that this is a direct result of Democrats taking power through the election of moderates in Republican districts.

Put aside the dubious methodology to Beaudrot uses to come to this conclusion the bottom line is it's completely irrelevant how Democrats won the last election. What's important is that there was a referendum on George W. Bush and his execution of the war in Iraq. Can anybody name any other national issue that was debated in every district in the country? Can anybody seriously argue that the message voters sent to our leaders was to get our boys the hell out of that quagmire?

Democratic congressmen of all stripes - moderates, liberals, conservatives or martian - were put in power to end this stupid fucking war. Democratic politicians like Pelosi and Reid who fail in that fundamental task aren't just sticking their finger in the eyes of the Democratic base, they're giving the majority of Americans the finger.

Oh, Snap!

Glenn Greenwald has the goods on the Specter bill. Harry Reid said on a conference call that - if it makes it to the floor - it will be fillibustered hard and rode home wet.

If you have the time you can read the bill (pdf) here. I've spend some time punching through it trying to see if the clearly unconstitutional retro-active application of the changes to FISA was still included but one passage from "findings" section where Specter is outlining the necessity of the bill really struck me. He is using the failure to nail Zacarias Moussaoui by the FBI as proof that the FISA law is to restrictive as stands.

"For days before September 11, 2001, the Federal Bureau of Investigation suspected that confessed terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui was planning to hijack a commercial plane. The Federal Bureau of Investigation, however, could not meet the requirements to obtain a traditional warrant or an order under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to search his laptop computer (Report of the 9/11 Commission 273-76)" (emphasis mine)

Specter sure makes it sound like the FISA court denied the FBI's request for a warrant, doesn't he? If one took the bill at face value and assumed the 9/11 Commission Report said exactly what they said then one would certainly be left with that impression.

I didn't. I read through the pages of the report covering Moussaoui and found this-

This set off a spirtited debate between the Minneapolis Field Office, FBI headquarters and the CIA as to whether the Chechen rebels and Khattab were sufficiently associated with terrorist a organization to constitute a "foreign power" for the purposes of the FISA statute. FBI headquarters did not believe this was good enough, and its National Security Law Unit declined to submit a FISA application."

Say it ain't so. Arlen "magic bullet" Specter isn't shooting straight in his FISA reform bill?

Next thing you'll tell me Brittany Spears is a bad parent or Colin Farrell has an anger management problem.

The goose was right, this fair is rat's paradise.

I smell a rat.

I'm not going to get into the specifics of the Harry Reid/ Boxing Tickets fiasco which has been well covered by other blogs, most specifically the TPM Muckracker which has been all over the story. In taking something of value from an organization with legislation pending before congress Reid acted unethically, of that there's no question in my mind.

But considering how this story has played out in the news and the blatant push towards conflating Reid's actions with the Republican Culture of Corruption (tm) in an effort towards false equivalence I'm really interested in how this story came about in the first place. Thus far most of the lefty outrage has been leveled at the AP author who wrote the piece; John Solomon. Solomon, though despicably partisan and intellectually lazy, is not the player behind the scenes that started this ball rolling. The true schemer here appears to be John McCain. From Muckracker:

The crux of Solomon's story was that Reid acted wrongly by accepting free boxing tickets from the Nevada Athletic Commission. In particular, Solomon focused on a title bout in September 2004 that Reid and McCain both attended. "Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., insisted on paying $1,400 for the tickets he shared with Reid for a 2004 championship fight," Solomon wrote.

But it turns out that it would have been illegal for Reid to reimburse the commission for the seats. That's because these weren't actually tickets - they were credentials with no face value given to V.I.P.'s. And according to the boxing promoter who awarded those credentials to Reid, it is illegal for the commission to accept payment for them. Despite that, McCain insisted on paying, and so the commission simply gave his check (written for a seemingly arbitrary amount) to a charity since it couldn't accept it.

What's more, that same promoter says that in other cases where Reid and McCain received tickets that could be reimbursed, Reid paid. That's a key fact which, if true, was left out of Solomon's article.

Let your mind wrap yourself around McCain's actions here. Senate ethics rules, as loose as they are, allow for a gift like that which he and Reid received from the boxing commission. Yet he tries to pay for the gift anyway and is informed that it would be illegal for the boxing commission to take equivalent payment for the tickets. At some point John "Keating Five" McCain decides that he still finds this morally and ethically reprehensible despite it's legality and sends off a check (for much less than what the face value of actual tickets would be, mind you) to the commission with the understanding that it would go towards charity. All of this just "happens" to find it's way to a reporter unfriendly to Reid with the story being distorted just enough to make it appear McCain paid for the tickets while Reid didn't.

If you buy that I have a lovely scenic spot on the Louisiana coast to sell you.

Muckracker has a current post up proclaiming "AP's Solomon Sucker Punches Reid." If anyone was doing the sucker punching here it was that rat John McCain.

We've got Armadillos in our trousers. It's really quite frightening.

Got the following marching orders from Howard Dean today-

Russ Feingold is a Traitor

That's what Republicans want you to think.

They are so scared of having a legitimate debate about Iraq or national security that they have only one reaction to news of their failures or calls for accountability.

On Monday, Democratic Senator Russ Feingold introduced legislation to censure the President for breaking the law by creating a secret domestic spying program. Agree or disagree with his proposal, as a Senator -- and as an American -- he has the right to speak his mind and express his views without Republican Senators questioning his patriotism.

But that's exactly what happened. This week Republican Senator Wayne Allard of Colorado, in an interview with Fox News radio, said in response to Feingold's action that he has "time and time again [sided] with the terrorists".

Send a message to Senator Allard: shame on him for questioning the patriotism of another Senator. Sign this petition and it will be delivered to Allard:

http://www.democrats.org/stopattackingruss

Agree or disagree with Russ Feingold's censure resolution, it is completely out of bounds to suggest that anyone demanding accountability is siding with terrorists. It is simply un-American to question the patriotism and loyalty of a Senator who wants the Congress to live up to its responsibility.

We've heard this cowardly nonsense from Republican leaders before. They attacked decorated Veteran and Democratic Rep. Jack Murtha for getting real on Iraq. They attacked Democratic Leader Harry Reid for shutting down the Senate to demand answers about manipulated pre-war intelligence.

They have ended the careers of generals who questioned Bush Administration talking points, and they even attack their own when respectable Republicans speak out on the disaster this administration has created in Iraq and its failure to close the gaps in our security here at home.

And time and again, the Republican controlled congress has consistently failed to conduct real oversight of the Administration, choosing instead to protect the Administration.

But polls show that nearly 70% of Americans reject this president and the Republican Congress that has failed to hold him accountable. And together we will hold Republicans accountable at the ballot box this year.

That's why the Democratic Party is putting the infrastructure on the ground now to fight in all 50 states. People everywhere are saying "enough is enough" -- and we will be ready to organize and fight everywhere with your help.

Please contribute whatever you can to make it happen:

http://www.democrats.org/accountability

The sick behavior of desperate Republicans will only stop when we fight back, and 2006 is the time to do it.

Thank you,

Governor Howard Dean, M.D.

As a reminder Dean was recently called into the Principal's office as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid chided him for his 50 state strategy. They want to stick to to the old model of targetting the few races that are demonstratably winnable. He wants to build a majority.

As for Allard: he should apologize for his remarks or be thrown out of the Senate.

A bird in the head is worth two in a bush.

Jacob Weiberg's inane piece in Slate on "The Three Stooges" of Pelosi, Reid and Dean has already been eviscerated by better than myself but I do find myself in agreement with one small portion of his screed. He writes "...But Democrats do not have a charismatic schemer like Newt Gingrich to lead the way. Instead, they have Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Howard Dean." Except for the "charismatic" reference to Newt (ick) the leadership of the Democratic party is laying the groundwork for a pending defeat from the jaws of victory of epic proportions in the 2006 mid-terms. This defeat won't come because Democratic leaders like Pelosi are too liberal ("...Washington's answer to Barbra Streisand") or because Dean's too angry ("...what he stands for in the minds of most people is incandescent rage and upscale socialism") but because they aren't too anything. They don't stand for a damn thing.

Matt Stoller on MyDD nailed the problem in a take-down of Pelosi's House Democratic Caucus:

A few weeks ago, Representative Louise Slaughter came out with a report called 'America for Sale' on the cost of Republican corruption. The link is no longer working, and I'll explain why in the next paragraph. The report itself was well done, and actually quantified the cost to taxpayers of what has been so obvious for so long, the looting of America by corrupted elites. The report elicited attacks from Republicans, who smeared Slaughter with charges that writing the report itself was an unethical use of taxpayer funds. Now, Louise Slaughter is a member of the House Rules Committee, so documenting the costs of corruption was completely reasonable. What is truly remarkable is that not one Democratic member stood by her. Not one issued a statement. No one from the progressive caucus - most of whom are in safe seats - came forward public to stand by their colleague. I'm sure there were pats on the back in private, but then, that's kind of the point.

And now, in a final insult, the report was removed from Pelosi's leader web site, apparently because of worries that the Republicans will file ethics charges against Pelosi for hosting it (it supposedly violates House Franking rules, which are incoherent and a huge mess and part of the tyranny of Republican rule in the House). Enough is enough. Whoever made the boneheaded decision in Pelosi's office is just out of touch. Leaders serious about ending corruption do not hang out to dry members who stand up against the looting of the country. Leaders serious about governing and wielding power do not scurry in hiding every time Republicans talk about ethics. They do not try to obey arbitrary incoherent rules that are written by Republicans and broken by the other side at will.

If Democrats win in 2006 (which is quite uncertain), Pelosi does not sound like she can do what is necessary to save this country. She acts like a small-minded summer camp councelor for spoiled Democratic members, and unless we are vigilant and aggressive this mindset is going to carry on over to whatever gains we make in 2006. Right now, there's this half-joke among Congresscritters that members don't speak in caucus meetings without first thanking everyone in the room. Members waste each others' time. Staffers are kept out of the loop, and lie to each other in vicious and pointless turf wars where the only goal is to get better offices. This diseased culture comes from years of being smacked around by Republicans, with little indignities like Republican Committee staffers getting better Blackberries and big indignities like Republicans changing rules whenever it suits them. The way to reverse this culture is to have leaders who do not back down.

There's something to be said for tradional political strategy best embodied by the phrase "giving one's opponent just enough rope to hang themselves." But if this is the strategy that Reid and Pelosi (I'll leave out Dean for the moment) are hoping will carry the party to victory this year then they really are on an extended trip to candyland with a stopover in leprechaun city. As has been demonstrated time and time again; if you give Karl Rove enough rope he'll use it to fashion a giant ropey weapon thing (I'm currently at a loss for metaphors) and beat you over the head with it. Not only have the leadership of the party blown signifigant political opportunities on issues like the Dubai ports deal or the NSA spying scandal but it's becoming clearer and clearer that the administration will move on Iran sometime this year and Pelosi and Reid had better get out in front of that or risk getting steamrolled yet again.

If they're not too busy spinning on the floor going "woo, woo, woo, woo, woo" and poking each other in the eyes, that is.

Sweep the leg.

Glenn Greenwald caught Bill Frist (aka the Amazing Karnak) threatening to break the rules if he doesn't get his way with the Senate Intelligence Committee. On Friday Karnack informed Harry Reid that any attempt to investigate the NSA spying scandal will force him to reorganize the 30 year old committee shifting the balance of power towards Republicans and away from any possiblity of hearings. Please read all of Greenwald's piece. It's another one of those "I thought I'd reached the limit of my outrage but then this came along" things.

Greenwald quotes part of Karnack's letter to Reid:

I am increasingly concerned that the Senate Intelligence Committee is unable to carry out its critically important oversight and threat assessment responsibilities due to stifling partisanship that is exhibited by repeated calls by Democrats on the Committee to conduct politically-motivated investigations. . . .

I'm intrigued by the politics of this, however, and what I think it signifies. From a purely strategic standpoint it seems to me that the hearings were not much of an immediate threat to the Republican party. Such hearings by their very nature would most certainly be held almost entirely in closed session and remain classified. Likewise any findings of the committee would take years to see the light of day. I think the possibility that we'd see a report on findings before the looming mid-term election, much less the next presidential election, to be pretty darn small.

So why is Karnack feeling so threatened? Are his amazing powers of prognostication making his Spidey Sense tingle? Does he see what the results of the hearings could mean to Republicans five years down the line? Is Terri Schiavo alive and pole-dancing at a strip club called "Big Daddys?"

Not bloody likely.

The adminstration is scared. They aren't scared of the results of the hearings since, as I've already mentioned, they do little to affect their own political fortunes. They are scared of the hearings themselves. They're scared that the mere fact that the hearings were taking place by itself would highlight that the adminstration had done something untoward.

That's why they've pushed Karnack into a position where he has to cheat on their behalf. Just picture the heated conversation on the sideline:

ROVE: "Sweep the leg."

Karnack looks incredulous.

ROVE: "You have a problem with that?"

KARNACK: "No, Sensei."

All that's left if for Harry Reid to employ the Crane Technique that is closing Senate business until the committee, as it's currently comprised, votes on hearings. Judging by the Democrats complete lack of cajones this election year I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.