Now I see this clearly. My whole life is pointed in one direction.

More bits...

I don't know why and I don't even know what it is but I really wanted the Arte y Pico award and was really tickled when Doctor Zaius tapped me to win it.



The origin of the award is here.

Because I'm always the bridesmaid when this is passed around I think I'm just about the last one on our little circle of friends that recieved this thing. As such I really don't think there's anybody on my blogroll that hasn't been to this dance already. If I'm wrong please let me know and I'll tap you right away.

----------------------------------------------

Hillary Clinton's speech was great. The only thing I would've liked was more digs on McCain. That problem isn't isolated to Clinton. It's something I've been complaining about regarding the convention since before it began.

----------------------------------

Having said that- Clinton and Montana Gov. Schweitzer and two of the stand out lines with regards to McCain. Clinton had the great "Twin Cities" jab and Schweitzer had a good line with regards to drilling for oil in John McCain's back yards "if he could remember where they are."

Humor is great but the fact of the matter is negative ads work and the Republicans are going to turn their entire four day convention into one big negative ad against Obama. I guess it's up to Biden tonight to go for the throat because there's no doubt Obama won't throw much red meat into his speech tomorrow night.

----------------------------------

I'm muting the network hosts altogether. They're worthless and it just gets my blood pressure up.

---------------------------------

I can't find the article now but I read something yesterday that labeled House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer as a "partisan firebrand." I got a chuckle out of that. Most of know Hoyer as the chief capitulator representing the Blue Dogs. He's all hat and no cattle.

----------------------------------

At an outside press conference Nancy Pelosi was confronted by a group of McCain supporters shouting "drill now!" Her response? "Can I drill your brain?" Sure it's juvenile but I like it.

----------------------------------

I won't be watching the Republican convention. Their candidate, and their party, are bankrupt in every sense of the word. I'll be declaring next week Animal Blogging Week and in honor of that I'll post some great pictures of a doe and her fawns that wandered into our camp while we were camping a couple of weeks ago.

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.

'And there shall be destruction and darkness come upon creation and the beasts will reign over the earth.'

Pete Stark apogized to the President on the floor of the House today for remarks in which he accused Bush of "sending kids to Iraq to get their heads blown off for his own amusement.*"

Sigh.

I think I can attribute my high blood pressure whenever I focus on politics to the fact that, unlike the elected Demcoratic representatives in congress, I don't function under a severe form of ADD.

How else can one explain the Democratic leadership's capitulation in the face of resolution censuring Stark introduced by none other than Republican John Boehner? The same John Boehner who just last month refused to apologize for saying soldiers killed in Iraq were paying a "small price" for our freedoms?

I just played a little game on Google. I took the name of leading conservative media personalities and congressman and did a search with their name plus the word "apologize." The results? "Democrats call for Limbaugh apology." "Democrats demand Boehner apologize for 'small price' remarks." "Critics call Coulter religious remarks insensitive."

Missing from all of that is an actual apology from any of those jackasses. Not to mention a "moveon" type censure.

What a bunch of spineless wimps the Democratic leadership is. It's just pathetic.

* That is not to say I agree with Stark's comment that Bush was getting soldiers killed for his own amusement. I think it's well established that Bush could care less one way or the other when our soldiers are killed.

God, why do you hate me?

Not only do I pray for our troops to "win," but I also pray that Chris Wallace finally raises enough money to pay for that obstructive cranialcolonectomy surgery he so urgently needs.

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.

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.

Hey, Daddy, I want an Oompa Loompa. I want you to get me an Oompa Loompa right away.

Nancy Pelosi may be a politician that I've spoken derisively of before, but I'm damn proud of her comments yesterday to Bush telling him to "calm down with the threats." That's exactly the sort of tone you should take with a spoiled child that's having a tantrum in the middle of the toy store.

If the behavior continues then I might just have to change my views on corporal punishment. "George, go out to the Rose Garden and get yourself a switch."

Jerry, just remember, it's not a lie if you believe it.

Sigh. I don't really expect this to get better.

Pelosi may have another problem. As the crop of freshly elected Democrats — including many younger ones who campaigned to the right of the party line — came to Capitol Hill for orientation Monday, they encountered a leadership dominated by mostly liberal, old-school Democrats.

A couple of questions for the LA Times reporter: what exactly is the Democratic "party line" and what is your evidence that newly elected young Democrats "campaigned to the right" of it?

So much of what seems to be accepted as benchmarks to political discussion these days seems wholly seperated from reality. This model of the political breakdown of the two major parties is thirty years old. Old and busted: Democrats are hippy, liberal whackos. New hotness: Democrats represent the mainstream of American values.

All that matters is that two stood against many. That's what's important!

It's been a crazy week. Besides the wonderful things that have been happening nationally work's been just nuts and my ability to post has been cut considerably by the collapse of my home computer to the dreaded motherboardblowsup virus. It appears it won't be recovering. So here are a few random thoughts on various items I'd wanted to talk about this week but didn't get the chance--

The Virginia Senate seat - I was trying to figure out the math on the senate make up with Lieberman and what it would mean if Allen beat Webb. In that case the Senate would have stood at 48 Democrats and 50 Republicans with 2 independents. As I understand it (I could be wrong about this) the Vice President doesn't vote when it comes to determining Majority Leader, only on bills before the Senate that are tied. This would've really put Lieberman in the cat bird's seat. Webb's win then diffused some of Lieberman's bargaining power though I don't doubt he'll still leverage quite a bit out of Democrats.

Governor Schwarzenegger - I don't believe his moderate act but, truth be told, what really gets me down about his re-election is that it makes it unlikely this film will ever be made. I may not like Arnold the Governator but I enjoy Arnold the bad actor immensely.

Conservatives - My very cool brother gave me John Dean's "Conservatives Without Conscience" for my birthday and probably the best parts of that book are the beginning chapters in which Dean searches for the definition of "conservatism" itself by examining the statements of it's leaders. The long and the short of is that it that the only thing conservatives seem to have in common is an overwhelming belief that "liberals" are bad. It's really a movement more easily defined by what it isn't rather than what it is.

With that in mind I got a good chuckle out of people like Ann Coulter, George Will and Rush Limbaugh trying to spin this election as a victory for conservatives by concentrating on the moderate Dems just elected and claiming America was really voting against liberals again. Who did they vote for? Who did the rest of the Bush wingnut base vote for? Moderate Democrats or Republicans?

Face facts guys: this election was to movement conservatism the same thing that Ned Beatty's run in with a toothless hillbilly on a river rafting trip did- America saying "Squeal piggie!"

Investigations vs. Impeachment - A lot of progressives seem to be fretting because Pelosi and other Democratic leaders have said impeachment is off the table. First comes first, guys. Investigate and THEN impeach. ;-)

Rummy b' Gone - I spent yesterday morning looking for a quote from Rumsfeld which was something he said at his press conference with Bush to the effect that "if voters understoond what kind of war we're fighting the election would've been different." Bush made similar comments- owing the results to the inability of our simple minds to wrap around the complex strategy they've put in place to prosecute the GWOT.

Dear Rummy - You're no Sun Tzu. You aren't even a Sonny Bono. True military strategists adapt to the patterns of the enemy, not stumble blindly forward on the same path fighting the war you wish you were fighting. Small, rapid troop deployments combined with high-tech military equipment may be effective when fighting conventional armies but that's not what we're facing in Iraq, you worthless hack.

They're coming to get you Barbara.

It's pretty obvious there's some google-bombing going on when the quality of political news articles at the top of the page has dropped so dramatically over the last few weeks. This piece is a perfect example: "Are Democrats too cocky?"

It's got all of the usual conservative bugaboos:

• Speaker Pelosi? Check.
• Barney Frank? Check.
• Incoherent Democratic agenda? Check.
• Higher taxes, more abortions and communism run large? Check.
• Terrorists winning? Check.

Sam Seder's recently taken to inviting John Amato from Crooks and Liars onto his show where John will play clips of Republican politicians making any of the above statements during debates and getting literally laughed at. It's really enjoyable to hear some Republican congressman get pissy because the crowd thinks his claim that they had a "robust response to Katrina" is hysterical.

Still I have to wonder about the backwashers like the author of the above article that still hold on to the delusions for dear life. I'll admit that there's a certain part of me that holds a certain respect for their certainty in the face of, well, objective reality. On the other hand I realize that should the Democrats meet conventional wisdom and eke out a victory the conservative dead-enders won't just go quietly into the night. They just have way too much invested in the delusion.

You're going to need a bigger boat.

When first I heard of rep. Cynthia McKinney's run-in with the Capitol Police and subsequent arrest warrant I thought the story a little weird but in keeping with my egalatarian view of the function of congresscritters it seemed fairly clear that she deserved the legal trouble that ensued. You don't get to "hit" an officer. Unless you're George Bush and you run your bike into a Scottish policeman. Apparently bumbling stupidity is the only acceptable exception.

The event was doubly dissapointing because whatever the circumstances the event provided easy cannon fodder for the blathering nincompoops of Right Wing talk. "Look-- another Democratic Congresswoman run wild." And run wild they did.

The resulting brouhaha has forced me to spend time thinking about something that should have been a minor incident for lack of Republicans desperately looking for something, anything to point to and claim Democrats are just as corrupt as they are. My conclusion: how in the hell can anybody comment on this incident in the first place when it's not clear what the hell actually happened?

McKinney is accused of hitting a Capitol Police officer that tried to stop her when she avoided a security checkpoint. What does "hitting" mean in the context of this accusation and why does it justify prosecution? Is the policeman hospitalized? Bruised? Do congressmen regularly avoid the checkpoint as has been widely reported or not?

In light of these questions I'm not sure Nancy Pelosi's decision to pile on was the wisest choice either morally or politically. When the Right Wing sharks are on a feeding frenzy it doesn't make sense to throw out more chum and bloody up the water even more. Better to beat 'em off the boat with your oars.

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.